Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/memoirsoflifewor00hart_0 


. 


We  certify  that  this  is  No. ...  of  two  hundred  and  fifty  copies  and 

two  unnumbered  copies  for  copyright  purposes,  printed  by  the  De 
Vinne  Press,  New  York,  from  type,  in  the  month  of  December,  1911. 


MEMOIRS  OF  THE  LIFE 


AND  WORKS  OF 

JEAN  ANTOINE  HOUDON 

THE  SCULPTOR  OF 


VOLTAIRE  AND  OF  WASHINGTON 


MEMOIRS  OF  THE  LIFE 
AND  WORKS  OF 

JEAN  ANTOINE  HOUDON 

THE  SCULPTOR  OF 

VOLTAIRE  AND  OF  WASHINGTON 

BY 

CHARLES  HENRY  HART 

AND 

EDWARD  BIDDLE 


WITH  THIRTY-THREE  ILLUSTRATIONS 


PHILADELPHIA 
PRINTED  FOR  THE  AUTHORS 
MCMXI 


Copyright,  1911,  by 

Charles  Henry  Hart  and  Edward  Biddle 


Contents 


PAGE 

Proem . xi 

Chapter  I (1741-1769) 3 

Birth  and  student  days  in  Rome.  Statues  of  Saint  Bruno  and 
of  John  the  Baptist.  The  Ecorche. 

Chapter  II  (1769-1777) 12 

Return  to  Paris.  Rapid  rise  to  fame.  Statues  of  Morphee 
and  of  Diana.  Busts  of  Diderot,  Gliick,  and  Sophie  Arnould. 

Chapter  III  (1778) 32 

Voltaire.  His  busts  and  his  statue  in  the  Comedie-Frangaise. 

The  bust  crowned  at  the  sixth  representation  of  “Irene” 
shown  to  have  been  by  Houdon. 

Chapter  IV  (1777) 62 

Tomb  of  Montgomery  by  Caffieri:  our  first  national  monu- 
ment. 

Chapter  V (1778)  73 

Bust  of  Franklin.  Caflieri’s  jealousy  of  Houdon.  Letters 
from  Caffieri  to  Franklin.  Caffieri’s  bust  of  Franklin  wrongly 
attributed  to  Ceracchi.  The  busts  of  Franklin  by  Houdon 
and  by  Caffieri  compared  and  distinguished. 


V 


VI 


Contents 


PAGE 


Chapter  VI  (1779) no 

Moliere,  Rousseau  and  Mirabeau.  Death-masks  of  Rous- 
seau and  of  Mirabeau. 

Chapter  VII  (1780) 125 

Bust  of  John  Paul  Jones.  The  question  of  the  identification 
of  his  remains  by  Houdon’s  bust  considered. 

Chapter  VIII  (1776-1848) 155 

La  Loge  des  Neuf-Soeurs.  Membership  of  Houdon,  Vol- 
taire, Franklin  and  Paul  Jones. 

Chapter  IX  (1781-1785) 173 

Statues  of  Tourville  and  of  “La  Frileuse.”  Houdon’s  re- 
vival of  the  art  of  casting  in  bronze. 

Chapter  X (1785) 182 

Washington.  Houdon’s  visit  to  America.  Domiciled  at 
Mount  Vernon  for  a fortnight.  Mask  and  bust  from  life. 

Statue  at  Richmond,  Va. 


Chapter  XI  (1785-1790) 226 

La  Fayette.  Busts  for  America  and  for  France.  Destruc- 
tion of  the  latter,  August  10,  1792. 

Chapter  XII  (1789) 248 

Busts  of  Jefferson,  Necker,  Louis  XVI,  and  Bailly. 

Chapter  XIII  (1791-1814)  255 

Escapes  the  guillotine.  Busts  of  Robert  Fulton  and  of  Joel 
Barlow;  of  Napoleon  and  of  Josephine. 


Contents  vii 

PAGE 

Chapter  XIV  (1814-1828) 272 

Last  days  and  death.  Portraits  of  Houdon.  His  honors  and 
his  genius. 

Appendix  A.  Houdon’s  Account  of  Expenses  on  his  Visit  to 

America 289 

Appendix  B.  Houdon’s  Explanation  of  the  Statue  to  the  King  . 294 

Appendix  C.  Houdon’s  Views  on  Competitions 296 

Appendix  D.  Houdon’s  Letter  on  Bust  of  Mirabeau  ....  299 

Appendix  E.  Sale  Catalogue  of  Houdon’s  Works,  1828  . . . 300 

Appendix  F.  Catalogue  of  Houdon’s  Works 306 

Appendix  G.  List  of  Authorities  used  in  the  Preparation  of  this 

Work  324 

Index 329 


Illustrations 


PHOTOGRAVURES  BY  THE  F.  A.  RINGLER  COMPANY 

I Portrait  of  Jean  Antoine  Houdon  modeling  a bust  of 

Bonaparte,  by  Louis  Boilly  ......  Frontispiece 

FACING  PAGE 

II  Statue  of  Saint  Bruno,  in  Rome 8 

ill  Statue  of  Morphee,  in  the  Louvre,  Paris 12 

IV  Bust  of  Diderot,  in  the  Louvre,  Paris 20 

v Bust  of  Mme.  Victoire  de  France,  in  the  Wallace  Collec- 
tion, London 24 

VI  Statue  of  Diana,  in  the  Louvre,  Paris  .......  30 

vii  Bust  of  Voltaire,  in  the  Theatre-Frangais,  Paris  ....  36 

Vlll  Bust  of  Voltaire  a ly  antique,  in  the  Louvre,  Paris  ...  44 

ix  Statue  of  Voltaire,  in  the  Theatre-Frangais,  Paris  ...  54 

x Bust  of  Louise  Brongniart,  in  the  Louvre,  Paris  ....  64 

XI  Bust  of  Alexandre  Brongniart,  in  the  Louvre,  Paris  ...  70 

xil  Bust  of  Franklin,  by  Jean-Jacques  Caffieri,  in  the  Institute 

of  France,  Paris 86 

xiii  Bust  of  Franklin,  in  the  Louvre,  Paris 104 

xiv  Bust  of  Rousseau,  in  the  Louvre,  Paris 118 

XV  Bust  of  John  Paul  Jones,  in  the  Pennsylvania  Academy  of 

Fine  Arts,  Philadelphia 128 


IX 


X 


Illustrations 


FACING  PAGE 

xvi  Bust  of  Lavoisier,  in  the  Louvre,  Paris 156 

XVII  Statue  of  “La  Frileuse,”  in  the  Louvre,  Paris 176 

xviii  Bust  of  Buffon,  in  the  Louvre,  Paris 180 

XIX  Life-mask  of  Washington,  owned  by  J.  Pierpont  Morgan, 

New  York 202 

xx  Bust  of  Washington,  in  the  Louvre,  Paris 206 

XXI  Statue  of  Washington,  in  Richmond,  Virginia  ....  220 

xxii  Bust  of  La  Fayette,  in  Richmond,  Virginia 236 

xxiii  Bust  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  in  the  New  York  Historical  So- 


ciety, New  York 248 

xxiv  Bust  of  Mme.  Houdon,  in  the  Louvre,  Paris 256 

xxv  Bust  of  Robert  Fulton,  in  the  National  Academy  of  De- 

sign, New  York 262 


xxvi  Bust  of  Napoleon,  in  the  Museum  at  Versailles,  France  . 266 

xxvii  Miniature  of  Houdon,  in  the  Louvre,  Paris 272 

xxvill  Miniature  of  Mme.  Houdon,  in  the  Louvre,  Paris  . . . 272 

xxix  Bust  of  Sabine  Houdon,  in  the  Louvre,  Paris 278 

xxx  Bust  of  Anne-Ange  Houdon,  in  the  Louvre,  Paris  . . . 284 

HALF-TONE  PLATES 

xxxi  The  Crowning  of  Voltaire,  March  30,  1778.  Part  of  en- 

graving by  C.  E.  Gaucher  after  J.  M.  Moreau  ...  47 

xxxii  Cenotaph  to  General  Montgomery,  by  Caffieri,  in  portico 

of  St.  Paul’s  Church,  New  York 

xxxill  Signature  of  Houdon  on  Bust  of  John  Paul  Jones  . . . 


62 

138 


Proem 


In  presenting  to  the  public  these  memoirs  of  the  life  of  Jean  An- 
toine Houdon,  it  seems  a little  strange  that  this  tardy  justice  to  him 
should  come  from  this  side  of  the  water,  and  that  while  his  art  is 
appreciated  in  his  own  land,  in  Britain  and  on  the  Continent,  no 
one  of  his  own  tongue  should  have  devoted  a volume  to  his  extraor- 
dinary career.  Of  course  to  the  American  people  Houdon  is  very 
near  from  his  having  chiseled  the  famous  statue  of  Washington, 
which  has  preserved  best  the  features  and  form  of  that  immortal 
character,  as  also  from  his  having  sculptured  busts  of  Franklin,  Jef- 
ferson, Paul  Jones,  La  Fayette,  Fulton  and  Barlow,  so  that  it  is  quite 
natural  we  should  be  deeply  interested  in  his  life  and  in  his  works. 
It  was  this  keen  interest  of  the  writers  that  has  resulted  in  the  pres- 
ent work,  in  which  his  life,  both  as  an  artist  and  as  a man,  is  traced 
with  a fullness  that  was  felt  very  doubtful  of  accomplishment  when 
first  undertaken.  From  the  bibliography  it  will  be  seen  that  two 
brief  sketches  of  Houdon’s  life  were  printed  in  France  more  than 
half  a century  ago,  but  they  were  published  in  such  a way  as  to  be 
unknown  outside  of  the  limited  few  who  would  delve  for  them,  they 
having  appeared  respectively  in  the  “Revue  Universelle  des  Arts,” 

xi 


XI 1 


Proem 


in  1855,  and  in  “Memoires  de  la  Societe  des  Sciences  Morales,  des 
Lettres  et  des  Arts  de  Seine-et-Oise,55  1857. 

What  seems  quite  a coincidence  in  this  connection  is  the  fact  that 
Houdon’s  career  would  appear  to  be  too  big  a subject  to  be  tackled 
single-handed,  as  the  first  mentioned  memoir  was  written  in  col- 
laboration by  Messrs.  Montaiglon  and  Duplessis,  the  second  by 
Messrs.  Delerot  and  Legrelle,  and  the  present  by  the  undersigned. 
As  the  material  used  in  this  work  was  necessarily  chiefly  in  French, 
and  a large  part  unpublished  manuscripts,  all  the  translations  have 
been  made  by  Mr.  Biddle,  who  has  also  prepared  the  chapters  on 
the  “Statues  of  Morphee  and  of  Diana/5  on  “Voltaire55  and  on 
“Moliere,  Rousseau  and  Mirabeau,55  while  Mr.  Hart  is  responsible 
for  those  on  “Franklin,55  on  the  “Tomb  of  Montgomery,55  on  “John 
Paul  Jones,55  on  “La  Loge  des  Neuf-Soeurs,55  on  “Washington55  and 
on  “La  Fayette.55  The  other  chapters  are  composite;  but  that  the 
work  should  be  absolutely  homogeneous,  Mr.  Hart  has  revised  Mr. 
Biddle’s  chapters,  and  Mr.  Biddle  has  done  the  like  service  for 
those  by  Mr.  Hart. 

The  writers  were  both  surprised  and  delighted  at  the  richness  of 
the  field  when  they  ploughed  deeply  into  the  published  and  unpub- 
lished material  both  at  home  and  abroad;  but  their  employment  of 
it  would  have  been  impossible  were  it  not  for  the  unusual  courtesies 
extended  to  them  on  all  sides.  To  the  Librarians  of  the  Library  of 
Congress,  of  Harvard  University,  of  the  Boston  Public  Library, 
of  the  State  Library  of  Virginia,  of  the  Metropolitan  Museum, 


Proem 


Xlll 


New  York,  of  the  American  Philosophical  Society  and  of  the  His- 
torical Society  of  Pennsylvania,  especial  acknowledgments  are  due 
and  are  most  gratefully  given  for  facilities  extended,  without  which 
it  would  have  been  out  of  the  question  to  make  this  volume  as  full 
and  as  complete  as  we  feel  it  is.  Owing  to  the  many  errors  we  have 
detected  and  corrected,  some  parts  of  the  work  may  seem  to  the 
superficial  reader  to  savor  of  the  controversial ; but,  while  we  have 
not  hesitated  at  acute  criticism  where  necessary,  we  have  not  aimed 
at,  nor  do  we  desire,  controversy.  We  feel  assured  that  the  reader 
will  agree  with  us  that  Houdon’s  life  was  too  rich  to  be  left  unwrit- 
ten, and  we  are  well  pleased  that  it  was  left  for  us  to  accomplish. 

Charles  Henry  Hart. 
Edward  Biddle. 

Philadelphia,  December,  1911. 


LIFE  AND  WORKS  OF 
JEAN  ANTOINE  HOUDON 


CHAPTER  I 

1741-1769 

BIRTH  AND  STUDENT  DAYS  IN  ROME-STATUES  OF  SAINT  BRUNO  AND 
OF  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST— THE  ECORCHE 


-^EAN  ANTOINE  HOUDON  was  born  at  Versailles, 
France,  on  the  20th  of  March,  1741.  His  parentage  was 


humble,  for  we  learn  that  his  father,  Jacques  Houdon, 
was  a servant  in  the  house  of  M.  Delamotte.  His  mother’s  maiden 
name  was  Anne  Rabache;  our  sculptor  being  the  third  child  born 
of  this  union. 

His  earliest  years  were  passed  at  Versailles,  and,  perhaps  uncon- 
sciously, in  the  midst  of  its  gardens  filled  with  works  of  art,  his  taste 
and  predilection  for  sculpture  first  took  root.  At  any  rate,  at  a very 
early  age  he  evinced  a strong  bent  toward  the  art  in  which  he  was 
to  become  so  famous.  When  about  five  years  of  age,  his  family  re- 
moved to  Paris;  his  father  still  being  employed  by  the  intendant 
Delamotte.  Here  Jacques  Houdon,  the  father,  seems  to  have  held 
the  post  of  “concierge,”  and  on  the  death  of  M.  Delamotte,  the 
widow  having  rented  the  building  to  the  King  for  the  purposes  of 
an  art  school,  Jacques  Houdon  remained  as  its  janitor. 

This  school,  or,  to  give  it  its  full  title,  “L’ficole  des  Eleves  Prote- 
ges,” was  established  in  1748,  when  our  little  Jean  Antoine  was 


3 


4 


Life  and  Works  of 


seven  years  old.  It  is  so  linked  with  his  after  development  that  we 
give  some  account  of  its  history.  It  appears  that  in  1747  Coypel, 
“the  first  painter  to  the  King”  and  then  director  of  the  “Academie 
de  Peinture  et  de  Sculpture,”  in  Paris,  complained  of  the  poor  work 
sent  in  by  the  art  students  holding  royal  scholarships  in  Rome.  He 
attributed  this  to  the  lack  of  sufficient  preparation  for  the  sojourn 
in  Rome,  and  therefore  he  proposed  to  Tournehem,  then  director- 
general  of  the  royal  buildings,  to  establish  a special  school  in 
which  the  holders  of  scholarships  might  be  prepared  by  a course  of 
three  years  for  their  studies  in  Rome.  Louis  XV  showed  himself 
favorably  inclined  toward  this  proposal;  Coypel  drew  up  the  act; 
and  early  in  the  following  year  the  institution  was  established  and 
opened  under  the  title,  “ficole  des  fileves  Proteges.” 

The  school,  as  already  mentioned,  was  installed  in  the  house  of 
the  late  intendant  Delamotte,  which  abutted  immediately  on  the 
old  Louvre,  close  to  the  present  Place  du  Carrousel,  where  the 
Gallery  of  the  Academy  of  Painting  was  then  to  be  found.  From 
this  time  on,  our  Jean  Antoine  lived  continually  in  the  environment 
of  artists.  Later  on,  when  somewhat  older,  to  quote  from  Raoul 
Rochette,1  Houdon’s  son-in-law,  “He  tiptoes  into  the  class-room, 
and  is  happy  if  he  can  snatch  a few  pieces  of  moist  clay  in  order  to 
imitate  the  work  of  the  students.  The  attention  of  the  professors, 
especially  of  Pigalle,  was  attracted  to  the  zeal  and  talent  which  his 
attempts  showed,  and  he  considered  it  worth  while  to  give  advice 

1 Preface  to  Houdon  Sale  Catalogue  of  1828. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  $ 

and  encouragement  to  the  boy,  hardly  more  than  ten  or  twelve  years 
old  at  that  time.”  The  whole  atmosphere  in  which  the  lad  lived 
and  moved  and  had  his  being  was  impregnated  with  art;  if  he  en- 
tered the  court  of  the  Louvre,  the  studios  of  Francin  and  Vasse, 
Pigalle,  LeMoyne,  Falconet,  Slodtz,  Bouchardon,  and  some  two  or 
three  others,  were  temptingly  at  hand.  With  the  friendly  feelings 
of  a number  of  these  artists  toward  our  embryo  sculptor,  oppor- 
tunities for  intercourse  with  them  must  have  been  frequent.  Prob- 
ably induced  by  the  professors,  who  had  noticed  the  boy’s  talent,  he 
entered  the  “Academie  de  Peinture  et  de  Sculpture,”  where  he  be- 
gan to  draw  from  the  model,  which  is  the  basis  of  all  artistic  devel- 
opment. His  teachers  were  the  professors  of  the  Academy,  who 
changed  monthly  in  giving  instruction. 

In  order  to  stimulate  the  diligence  of  the  students,  they  had  to 
work  for  their  places.  Every  three  months  the  best  three  students 
received  a prize.  This  was  called  the  small  prize,  in  distinction 
from  the  “Grand  Prix  de  Rome.”  Houdon  received  the  former 
prize  as  early  as  the  25th  of  September,  1756,  at  the  age  of  fifteen 
years.1  As  the  quarterly  prize  just  mentioned  consisted  of  a silver 
medal,  the  winners  were  called  “medalists.”  They  enjoyed  the 
right  and  honor  of  entering  the  studio  preceding  the  other  students 
and  immediately  after  the  professors  and  the  “Eleves  proteges.”  In 
the  new  class  they  no  longer  limited  themselves  to  copying,  but 


1 “Registres  de  l’Academie  de  Peinture  et  de  Sculpture,  1756,  25  Septembre”  (Archives 
de  l’ficole  des  Beaux  Arts).  See  note,  Dierks,  Houdon’s  Leben  und  Werke,  p.  5. 


6 


Life  and  Works  of 


began  to  work  from  nature  and  to  make  original  compositions  un- 
der the  instruction  of  the  teacher.  There  is  mention  of  Houdon’s 
winning  third  prize  for  a study  from  life  about  this  period,  Du- 
vivier,  the  medalist,  having  carried  off  first  prize,  and  Le  Brun,  the 
painter,  second. 

With  such  studies  time  passed.  The  next  goal  for  Houdon’s 
effort  was  in  competition  for  the  grand  prize,  “Prix  de  Rome” ; the 
test  for  the  talent  of  the  up-growing  artists.  In  1761,  when  twenty 
years  of  age,  he  considered  himself  strong  enough  to  enter  the  lists 
with  his  fellow-students.  The  competition  was  opened,  as  usual, 
some  days  before  the  first  Saturday  in  April.  The  subject  given 
out  was  “The  Queen  of  Sheba  offers  Presents  to  King  Solomon,”  of 
which  a sketch  in  bas-relief  was  to  be  made.1  On  the  4th  of  April 
the  finished  sketches  were  submitted  to  the  assembled  members  of 
the  Academy,  and  after  examining  them,  they  considered  the  sculp- 
tor students  Pollet,  Houdon,  Boucher  and  Fourreau  entitled  to 
compete  for  the  grand  prize.  They  now  had  to  execute  their 
sketches  in  special  and  separate  booths.  On  the  15th  of  August  the 
works  were  finished  and  on  the  feast  of  St.  Louis  they  were  exhibited 
for  public  criticism  in  the  halls  of  the  Academy.  On  the  29th  of 
August,  1761,  the  final  decision  was  given  out,  Houdon  receiving 
the  first  prize? 

This  event  was  decisive  for  the  future  of  the  young  artist.  Be- 

1 Houdon  preserved  the  bas-relief  he  made  and  with  which  he  won  the  prize  until  the 
time  of  his  death.  It  appears  in  the  Sale  Catalogue  of  1828. 

2 Dierks,  p.  5,  quotes  “Registres  de  TAcademie,  1761,  29  Aout.” 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  7 

sides  the  gold  medal  received  for  winning  in  the  competition,  he 
also  gained  the  privilege  of  seven  years’  study  at  the  expense  of  the 
King.  To  begin  with,  he  entered  the  “Ecole  des  Eleves  Proteges,” 
which  was  established,  as  we  have  already  seen,  to  prepare  students 
by  a three  years’  course  for  their  studies  in  Rome.  At  this  point  it 
seems  proper  to  state  that  neither  Montaiglon  and  Duplessis  nor 
Delerot  and  Legrelle  appear  to  have  known  the  fact  of  Houdon’s 
having  first  entered  this  school  in  Paris  before  going  to  Rome;  on 
the  contrary,  they  are  quite  vague  as  to  the  length  of  Houdon’s 
sojourn  in  Rome,  putting  it  at  anywhere  from  seven  to  ten  years. 
Dr.  Hermann  Dierks,  however,  with  characteristic  German  thor- 
oughness,1 unearthed  from  the  Archives  Nationales,  0, 1094,  P-  21 1, 
the  “Brevet  d’eleve  sculpteur  de  l’Academie  de  Rome  pour  le 
S.  Houdon,  du  19  Aout,  1764.”  This  is  signed  by  the  Marquis  de 
Marigny,  brother  of  Mme.  de  Pompadour,  and  is  as  follows: 

“We,  Marquis  of  Marigny — in  consideration  of  the  favorable 
reports  made  to  us  of  the  good  conduct  of  Sieur  Jean  Antoine  Hou- 
don born  at  Paris  [sic!]  aged  23  years,  and  of  his  happy  faculties 
in  the  art  of  sculpture  which  he  has  studied  as  well  under  M. 
Slodtz,  Sculptor  to  the  King,  as  at  the  ficole  des  Eleves  Proteges, 
protected  by  his  Majesty  under  M.Vanloo,  Governor  of  said  school, 
in  which  the  said  S.  Houdon  carried  off  first  prize  on  the  29th  of 
August,  1761,  We  have  chosen  and  named  him  to  take  one  of  the 
places  of  Student  Sculptors  at  the  Academy  in  Rome,  under  the 

1 Houdon’s  “Leben  und  Werke,”  Dr.  Hermann  Dierks,  Gotha,  1887,  p.  11. 


8 


Life  and  Works  of 


conduct  and  discipline  of  M.  Natoire— with  the  responsibility 
by  S.  Houdon  to  apply  himself  with  docility  and  assiduity  to  the 
studies  and  works  that  the  said  M.  Natoire  may  order  him.  . . . 
In  testimony  of  which— at  Versailles— 

“The  Marquis  of  Marigny  ” 

This,  it  will  be  seen,  establishes : 

First,  that  after  winning  the  Prix  de  Rome,  Houdon  did  not  pro- 
ceed to  Italy  until  three  years  later;  actually  on  the  i ith  of  Novem- 
ber, 1764  ;*  and  that  in  the  meantime  he  pursued  his  studies  in 
Paris. 

Secondly,  as  we  have  the  date  of  his  return  to  France,  “the  end  of 
the  year  1768,”  that  the  time  he  spent  in  Rome  covered  just  about 
four  years . On  this  point  Dr.  Dierks  in  a note  states,  “The  10th  of 
April,  1768,  his  name  is  still  on  the  list  of  pensioners  in  Rome,  but 
on  the  25th  of  January,  1769,  it  is  there  no  more.” 

Few  details  are  obtainable  of  these  years  passed  by  Houdon  in 
Rome.  We  learn,  however,  from  a letter2  bearing  date  January  7th, 
1767,  that  he  worked  with  ardor.  “If  I do  nothing  of  mark,”  he 
writes,  “at  least  I shall  have  nothing  to  reproach  myself  with.”  But 
this  modest  summing  up  of  Houdon’s  merits,  by  himself,  does  not 
begin  to  do  justice  to  his  budding  reputation.  Italy,  herself  deca- 
dent at  this  period,  confided  to  him  the  execution  of  a statue  of 
Saint  Bruno,  Founder  of  the  Carthusian  Order  in  the  eleventh  cen- 

1 “L’Academie  de  France  a Rome,”  Gazette  des  Beaux  Arts,  Vol.  VI,  1872,  p.  16. 

2 Quoted  by  Delerot  and  Legrelle,  p.  63. 


MMUT^CQ) 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  9 

tury,  and  intended  for  the  Monastery  of  the  Chartreuse.  While  not 
going  the  length  of  Delerot  and  Legrelle,  who  consider  this  figure 
even  a greater  work  in  some  respects  than  the  statue  of  Voltaire, 
we  confess  to  a very  great  admiration  for  Houdon’s  conception. 
The  naturalness  and  simplicity  of  the  figure  are  remarkable  and 
striking,  especially  considering  the  period  of  its  execution,  differ- 
ing in  this  respect  from  the  labored  and  studied  art  so  prevalent  at 
that  period.  The  statue  is  nine  and  a half  feet  in  height,  and  is 
placed  in  the  pronaos  of  the  Church  of  the  Chartreuse  in  Rome, 
also  known  as  the  Church  of  St.  Mary  of  the  Angels.  The  idea  of  a 
“life  dedicated  to  contemplation  and  religion”  is  admirably  ex- 
pressed in  the  features,  attitude  and  expression  of  the  holy  cenobite, 
and  the  articulation  of  the  hands  is  wonderful.  Pope  Clement 
XIV,  on  viewing  it,  is  said  to  have  exclaimed,  “ ’T  would  speak, 
did  not  the  rules  of  its  order  enjoin  silence.”  Connecting  this  anec- 
dote with  the  time  that  Ganganelli  ascended  the  papal  throne,  in 
May,  1769,  would  indicate  that  Saint  Bruno  was  the  work  of  Hou- 
don’s  last  years  in  Rome.  An  eminent  English  critic,  Mr.  Claude 
Phillips,  has  this  to  say  of  it:1 

“He  [Houdon]  found  time  to  execute  a colossal  statue  of  the 
founder  of  the  Carthusian  order  of  Saint  Bruno,  of  which  a cast  is 
seen  in  the  Trocadero  [Paris].  It  is  a work  of  surpassing  dignity 
and  simplicity,  considering  the  age  in  which  it  was  conceived  and 
executed  and  the  youth  of  the  artist;  indeed,  in  these  respects  it  may 

1 The  London  Art  Journal  of  1893,  Vol.  XLV,  p.  78. 


IO 


Life  and  Works  of 


be  said  to  stand  almost  alone  in  the  eighteenth  century,  which  pro- 
duced so  many  skilful  executants  but  so  few  sculptors  of  the  highest 
class.” 

Houdon  also  executed,  while  at  Rome,  his  “Ecorche,”  or  skinless 
figure,  an  admirable  anatomical  study  which  Lalande,  in  his  “Voy- 
age in  Italy,”  mentions  as  having  been  made  in  1767.  Houdon  pre- 
sented it  to  the  Academy  on  his  return  to  Paris,  at  the  date  of  his 
“approbation”  by  that  body.  Afterward  he  modeled  a second  fig- 
ure, with  the  right  arm  in  a different  position,  the  first  having  the 
arm  extended  at  the  level  of  the  shoulder,  while  in  the  later  one  the 
arm  is  uplifted  above  the  head.  Houdon  gave  this  also  to  the 
Academy,  in  1792,  to  serve  the  students  as  a model.  It  is  the  better 
known  of  the  two,  and  is  the  one  which  the  government  had  cast 
in  bronze.  A striking  fact  about  this  model  is  its  continued  celeb- 
rity and  the  practical  use  made  of  it  by  students  down  to  the  present 
day.  After  the  lapse  of  one  hundred  and  forty-five  years,  we  find 
it  reproduced  and  cited  in  modern  works  on  anatomy,  still  playing 
its  part  in  the  field  for  which  it  was  created. 

A statue  of  Saint  John  the  Baptist  of  this  period  at  Rome  has 
given  rise  to  a good  deal  of  conjecture  and  doubt.  The  question  has 
been  raised  whether  Houdon  ever  made  such  a figure.  The  proofs 
that  he  did  so  seem  to  us  overwhelming.  Natoire,  then  the  head  of 
the  school  in  Rome,  states  in  a letter  that  the  statue  was  ordered  for 
the  Church  of  St.  Mary  of  the  Angels,  and  there  so  late  as  1887  Dr. 
Dierks  notes  the  statue  standing  directly  opposite  the  Saint  Bruno, 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  n 

“not  of  marble,  to  be  sure,  but  carried  out  in  gypsum.”  Dr.  Dierks 
thinks  the  style  to  be  undoubtedly  Houdon’s.  This  is  supported  by 
the  following  note  in  “L’Academie  de  France  a Rome”:1 

ii  fevrier  1767  le  Sr.  Oudon  sculpteur  a fait  dernierement  avec 
beaucoup  de  succes  une  etude  d’anatomie,  que  tous  les  connoisseurs  dans 
ce  genre  trouvent  fort  bien.  Elle  luy  doi  servir  a sa  statue  de  saint  Jean- 
Baptiste  pour  l’eglise  de  Chartreux  en  la  mettant  ensuitte  dans  le  carac- 
tere  qui  convient  a cette  figure. 

A gypsum  head  of  Saint  John  is  in  the  Museum  at  Gotha,  having 
been  sent  by  Houdon,  at  a later  period,  to  the  court  of  the  Duke, 
and  in  a letter  of  Houdon’s  dated  the  3d  year  of  the  Republic  oc- 
curs the  following: 

“J’ay  de  plus  fait  a Rome  pour  l’Eglise  des  Chartreux  un  St. 
Brunehaut  [sic!]  en  marbre  de  9 p y2,  un  St.  Jean  Baptiste.” 

Adding  all  these  data  together,  we  think  it  impossible  to  do  other- 
wise than  accredit  Houdon  with  the  statue  of  Saint  John.  There 
seems  to  have  been  some  straining  after  effect  in  the  figure,  which 
the  Saint  Bruno  is  so  free  from,  a reason  probably  for  its  not  having 
shared  the  fame  of  the  latter.  The  head,  on  the  other  hand,  is  de- 
scribed as  fine,  of  classical  outline  and  full  of  deep  expression. 

There  is  also  record  of  a copy  made  by  Houdon  in  marble  of  a 
Centaur,  as  dating  from  this  period,  which  appears  to  have  been  at 
one  time  (1818)  in  the  Luxembourg  Museum. 

With  the  completion  of  these  various  works,  Houdon  brought  his 
student  days  to  an  end.  The  apprentice  had  become  a master. 

1 Gazette  des  Beaux  Arts,  Vol.  VI,  1872,  p.  16. 


CHAPTER  II 

1769-1777 

RETURN  TO  PARIS-RAPID  RISE  TO  FAME-STATUES  OF  MORPHEE 
AND  DIANA-BUSTS  OF  DIDEROT,  GLtlCK 
AND  SOPHIE  ARNOULD 

ACK  once  more  in  Paris  after  an  absence  of  four  years  in 
Rome,  the  first  move  Houdon  made  was  to  present  him- 
self for  approbation  to  the  Academy.1  His  Morpheus 
has  always  been  the  figure  cited  as  the  one  to  win  his  reception  into 
the  Academy  through  a life-size  model  in  plaster,  the  only  exem- 
plar of  which  is  now  in  the  Museum  at  Gotha.  Delerot  and  Le- 
grelle  and  Montaiglon  and  Duplessis  both  give  currency  to  the 
suggestion  that  the  figure  had  been  executed  in  Rome;  but  a later 
writer,  Paul  Vitry,  in  a contribution  to  the  “Revue  de  l’Art”  in 
1907,  makes  out  a strong  case  against  this  idea.  According  to  his  ac- 
count, the  rolls  of  the  Academy  under  date  of  July  23,  1769,  record 
that  Houdon  “exhibited  from  his  works,”  that  the  Academy  “recog- 
nized his  capacity,”  and  that  “M.  the  Directeur  will  instruct  him  as 
to  what  he  is  to  execute  for  his  reception.”  Not  until  nearly  eighteen 
months  later,  on  the  31st  of  December,  1770,  does  one  read  that 

1 The  Rules  of  the  Academy  required  that  one  should  first  be  approved,  then  become 
an  Academician,  afterward  Professor,  then  Rector. — Paul  Vitry,  “La  Revue  de  l’Art,” 
No.  1 19,  p.  149. 


12 


mcQmiPIHDEIE 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  13 

Houdon  “has  presented  a sketch  of  the  piece  ordered  him  for  his 
reception,  which  represents  Morpheus.”  M.  Vitry  deduces  from 
this,  and  we  agree  with  him,  that  the  Morpheus  could  hardly  have 
figured  among  the  student  works  that  the  young  sculptor  had 
brought  with  him  from  Rome  and  which  he  submitted  to  the 
judges  of  the  Academy  in  1769.  On  the  contrary,  it  would  seem  to 
have  been  his  first  original  work  executed  in  Paris  for  submission 
to  the  Academy  on  final  judgment. 

He  doubtless  submitted  his  “ficorche”  first,  for  the  records  of 
the  Academy  under  date  of  September  30,  1769,  register  his  offer1 
of  a copy  of  this  in  plaster.  Another  piece  might  have  been  a 
sketch  or  reduction  of  his  Saint  Bruno,  and,  beyond  doubt,  some 
studies  from  the  antique.  When  Houdon  finally  became  Acade- 
mician in  the  year  1777,  he  made  for  his  morceau  de  reception  a 
reduced  figure,  half  life  size,  of  his  Morphee  in  marble.  This  is 
now  at  the  Louvre. 

Quatremere  de  Quincy,  as  Houdon’s  successor  at  the  Institute,  in 
a eulogy  delivered  at  the  Academy  in  1829  on  Houdon,  stated  that 
“the  little  model  which  made  him  agree,  and  which  later,  rendered 
in  marble,  inducted  him  into  the  Academy,  was  that  figure  of  Mor- 
pheus which  he  carried  sometime  later  to  life  size.”  Montaiglon 
and  Duplessis  corrected  this  error  in  1855,  pointing  out  that  at  the 
Salon  of  1771  there  figured  a Morpheus  of  life  size,  and  that  the 
figure  was  not  enlarged  but  reduced  later  by  Houdon  in  1777  when 

1 Paul  Vitry,  “La  Revue  de  l’Art,”  February  io,  1907. 


14 


Life  and  Works  of 


he  made  the  marble.  The  explanation  of  this,  given  by  Delerot  and 
Legrelle,  is  that  the  rules  of  the  Academy  prescribe  that  all  sculp- 
ture intended  for  diploma  work,  morgeaux  de  reception,  shall  not 
exceed  three  feet  in  dimensions,  thus  saving  an  expense  for  material 
to  the  artist,  and  avoiding  the  dilemma  to  the  Academy  of  having 
to  care  for  a constantly  growing  collection  of  life-size  figures. 

The  “Secret  Memoirs,”  under  date  of  September  22,  1777,  pages 
49,  50,  51,  reviewing  the  Salon  of  1777,  write  anent  the  marble 
Morpheus,  “The  Morphee  of  M.  Houdon  characterizes  the  God 
of  Sleep  so  as  to  render  him  unmistakable.  It  is  not  an  ordinary 
relaxation;  it  is  an  entire  suspension  of  all  the  senses;  it  is  a heavy, 
deep,  and  entire  abandonment;  it  is  a complete  prostration,  which 
would  mean  illness— lethargy— in  a mortal,  and  is  merely  the 
natural  state  of  this  divinity.  His  wings  alone  seem  to  betray  some 
action,  some  movement,  doubtless  to  express  in  the  midst  of  his 
torpor  his  complete  ascendancy  over  nature.” 

Opinions  seem  to  differ  as  to  which  of  the  two  is  the  more  con- 
vincing, the  life-size  plaster  or  the  reduced  marble.  Montaiglon 
and  Duplessis,  writing  in  1855,  were  of  the  opinion  that  the  life-size 
figure,  which  they  apparently  had  not  seen,  however,  must  have 
been  superior,  and  that  in  the  reduction  it  probably  lost  much  of  its 
strength  and  meaning.  Paul  Vitry,  writing  in  the  “Revue  de  PArt,” 
so  late  as  February,  1907,  having  access  to  both  the  life-size 
plaster  at  Gotha  and  the  smaller  marble  of  the  Louvre,  takes  an 
opposite  view,  rather  criticizing  unfavorably  the  “academic  round- 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  15 

ness”  of  the  plaster  model  and  extolling  the  finer  lines  and  finish  of 
the  marble.  From  reproductions  alone  and  without  a comparison 
of  the  originals,  it  is  difficult  to  express  an  opinion,  and  we  do  not 
attempt  it  ourselves,  only  remarking  that  it  is  natural  to  suppose 
that  Houdon’s  art  had  advanced,  and  that  the  marble,  made  seven 
years  later  than  the  plaster,  had  the  advantage  of  this  greater  ma- 
turity. 

At  the  Salon  of  1771,  at  which  the  life-size  model  of  Morpheus 
was  exhibited,  Houdon  showed  also  a medallion  head  of  Alexan- 
der the  Great,  intended  to  serve  as  a pendant  to  an  antique  head  of 
Minerva,  and  two  heads  of  young  men  are  also  mentioned,  prob- 
ably studies.  But  what  particularly  marks  Houdon’s  exhibitions  at 
this  Salon,  foreshadowing,  as  they  do,  his  future  fame,  are  the  por- 
trait-busts ; inaugurating  a career  in  this  special  branch  of  sculpture, 
in  which  all  agree  he  was  to  become  unrivaled.  Unfortunately, 
two  of  the  busts  were  of  persons  toward  whom  the  public,  owing  to 
certain  happenings,  were  unfavorably  disposed.  These  were  M. 
Bignon,  the  Mayor  of  Paris,  and  his  wife.  Bignon  was  a man  of 
good  connections,  but  it  so  happened  that  at  the  celebration  of  the 
marriage  of  the  Dauphin  and  Marie  Antoinette  the  year  previous, 
when  Bignon  was  in  office,  a premature  discharge  of  fire-works 
and  a consequent  panic  resulted  in  a dreadful  loss  of  life,  some  one 
hundred  and  thirty  bodies  being  found  trampled  to  death.  A case 
of  a somewhat  similar  nature  in  the  reign  of  Louis  XI,  where  severe 
punishment  had  been  meted  out  to  the  Mayor,  presented  a prece- 


i6 


Life  and  Works  of 


dent  for  much  unjust  indignation;  besides  which,  Bignon  had  had 
the  temerity— or  bad  taste,  perhaps— to  show  himself  at  the  Opera 
shortly  after  the  event,  so  that  the  public  were  not  disposed  to  view 
a likeness  of  him  with  much  favor.1  Mme.  Bignon,  being  plain  of 
feature,  did  not  help  to  relieve  the  situation. 

Houdon’s  bust  of  Diderot,  however,  now  at  the  Louvre,  and 
probably  one  of  the  very  best  of  his  portrait-busts,  made  a great 
impression  and  marked  the  beginning  of  that  series  of  masterpieces 
in  portraiture  which  Houdon  was  to  bequeath  to  posterity.  The 
contrast  between  the  incisive,  nervous,  and  alert  countenance  of 
Diderot  and  the  recumbent  dreaming  figure  of  Morpheus  was  very 
striking  and  attracted  general  notice  and  appreciative  criticisms,  as 
showing  Houdon’s  versatile  talent.  Diderot  himself  points  out  the 
difficulties  Houdon  successfully  overcame:  “I  wear  a mask  that 
deceives  the  artist;  whether  there  are  too  many  things  blended  to- 
gether, whether  the  impressions  I receive  succeed  each  other  too 
rapidly  and  show  themselves  all  in  my  countenance,  the  artist  thus 
never  seeing  me  the  same  from  one  moment  to  another,  his  task  be- 
comes more  difficult  than  he  imagined.” 

At  this  exhibition,  the  Salon  of  1773,  Houdon  had  a great  num- 
ber of  works.  Success  had  come,  and  he  was  eagerly  besought  from 
every  quarter,  even  outside  of  his  own  country.  The  reigning  Duke 
of  Saxe-Gotha  and  Altenburg  engaged  him  to  make  his  own  bust, 

1 This  marble  bust  is  now  in  the  Museum  at  Montpellier.  Louis  Gonze  reproduces 
it  in  his  book  on  the  Museums  of  France. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  i7 

those  of  his  father,  wife  and  sister;  the  Empress  of  Russia,  her  own 
bust;  and  the  Galitzin  family  of  Russia,  two  memorial  tombs.  His 
opportunity  for  carrying  out  the  first  of  these  commissions  was 
afforded  him  by  a stay  of  some  months  at  the  court  of  the 
Duke.  In  a species  of  note-book  kept  by  Jacques  Houdon,  the 
father,  there  is  mention  of  his  son  Jean  Antoine’s  absence  at 
Gotha  from  October  12  to  December  20,  1771,  and  again  from 
April  24  to  July  1,  1773.  The  authority  for  this  is  a pamphlet 
by  M.  Gaudoin,  who  had  access  to  the  papers  of  Sabine  Houdon, 
and  a letter  quoted  by  Delerot  and  Legrelle.  The  Duchess 
Charlotte,  writing  to  Houdon  in  1803,  recalls  the  visit  by  saying, 
“Be  assured  that  it  is  always  with  great  pleasure  I recall  the  time 
that  I had  the  advantage  of  seeing  you  here  with  us.”  Houdon, 
not  having  visited  Russia— indeed,  he  never  went  there— probably 
owed  the  Russian  orders  to  Diderot’s  influence  and  the  friendly 
offices  of  J.  C.  de  Mailly,  the  enameler,  whose  wife  had  sat  to  Hou- 
don for  her  bust.  De  Mailly  had  gone  to  Russia,  and  it  is  perhaps 
from  one  of  the  portraits  of  the  great  Catharine  enameled  by  this 
artist  that  Houdon  modeled  the  bust,  which  he  made  larger  than 
life.  The  “Secret  Memoirs”  in  “Letters  on  the  Salon  of  1773”  have 
this  to  say  of  it:  “This  beautiful  head,  larger  than  the  usually  ac- 
cepted size,  seems  to  announce  that  Nature  made  an  effort  in  giving 
birth  to  the  immortal  sovereign  whom  it  represents.” 

After  this  period,  Houdon  no  longer  consented  to  work  at  hap- 
hazard without  the  presence  of  his  model ; and  when  it  wasproposed 


1 8 


Life  and  Works  of 


that  he  should  make  a statue  of  Washington,  he  refused  to  under- 
take it  unless  it  was  agreed  that  he  should  see  Washington  and 
model  him  from  the  life.  At  the  Salon  of  1775,  we  find  a superb 
collection  of  busts,  including  such  names  as  Miromesnil,  Keeper  of 
the  Seals;  the  celebrated  Turgot,1  Minister  of  Finance;  the  head  in 
marble  of  the  charming  actress,  Sophie  Arnould,  in  the  role  of 
Gluck’s  “Iphigenia,”  slightly  flattered,  it  was  thought,  but  full  of 
grace;  and  beside  this  artist  who  interpreted  his  roles,  a model  of 
Gliick,  the  marble  of  which  was  exhibited  at  the  following  Salon. 
Gluck  was  pock-marked,  and  Houdon,  with  his  ideas  of  realism 
and  fidelity  toward  his  models,  reproduced  these  blemishes  faith- 
fully. He  was  a good  deal  criticized  for  doing  so.  But  the  bust 
was  afterward  and  is  now  counted  as  one  of  his  most  spirited  and 
life-like  creations.  The  marble  has  disappeared,  but  an  admirable 
gypsum  model  is  in  the  Berlin  Museum. 

One  might  suppose  that  the  execution  of  all  these  matchless  por- 
traits would  leave  but  little  time  or  inclination  for  indulgence  in 
imaginative  work,  and  yet  our  artist  had  several  pieces  of  that  char- 
acter on  view  at  the  same  Salon:  the  plaster  model  of  a female 
leaving  the  bath  which  was  to  be  executed  in  marble;  a head  of 
Medusa,  a 1’ antique;  and  the  head  of  a young  girl  in  bronzed  plas- 
ter, remarked  upon  for  its  “expression  of  sweetness  and  simplicity.” 
We  shall  find  that  Houdon  became  noted  for  this  style  of  head,  ex- 

1 A fine  plaster  cast  of  this  bust  at  the  American  Philosophical  Society  of  Philadel- 
phia, was  presented  by  Dupont  de  Nemours  on  December  6,  1816.  Proceedings  of  Am. 
Phil.  Soc.,  1744-1838,  p.  468. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  19 

pressing  youthful  innocence  and  naivete,  and  the  examples  that  we 
reproduce  of  the  two  children  of  Alexandre  Brongniart,  the  archi- 
tect of  the  Hotel  des  Invalides,  and  of  the  sculptor’s  own  two  chil- 
dren, show  why  he  should  have  become  thus  noted.1  In  connection 
with  one,  particularly,  a very  amusing  anecdote  is  told.  We  quote 
from  Bachaumont:2  “The  most  curious  head  in  this  studio,  through 
the  novelty  and  originality  of  the  story,  is  the  bust  of  ‘Mile. 
Lise.’  It  must  be  recalled  that  in  1774  the  City  of  Paris,  instead  of 
giving  useless  entertainments  in  honor  of  the  marriage  of  the  Comte 
d’Artois,  conceived  the  idea  of  giving  young  girls  in  marriage.  Of 
this  number  was  Mile.  Lise.  When  she  presented  herself  for  regis- 
tration she  was  asked  the  name  of  her  lover.  She  replied  ‘that  she 
had  none,  that  she  thought  the  City  was  to  furnish  everything,’— 
and  the  City,  as  it  turned  out,  found  her  a husband.  The  face  of 
such  an  innocent  needed  doubtless  to  be  preserved,  and  this  is  what 
Houdon  has  done;  in  this  physiognomy,  whose  agreeable  features 
are  well  adapted  to  express  the  average  face,  there  is  a character- 
istic something  introduced  that  it  would  be  hard  to  detect  in  a hun- 
dred thousand  others.”  But  what  drew  forth  the  most  general  and 
marked  admiration  was  his  “Dead  Thrush.”  The  bird  is  repre- 
sented hanging  by  one  claw  from  a nail.  Baron  Grimm3  tells  an 

1 A beautiful  marble  of  Louise  Brongniart  is  in  a New  York  collection,  and  while 
not  signed  by  Houdon,  the  slight  deviations  from  the  original  terra-cotta  and  the 
exquisite  delicacy  of  the  cutting,  leave  no  doubt  but  that  it  came  from  the  master’s  hand. 

2 Bachaumont’s  “Memoires  Secrets,”  April  19,  1778,  Vol.  XI,  p.  198. 

3 “Correspondance  Litteraire,”  Vol.  XIV,  p.  416. 


20 


Life  and  Works  of 


anecdote  of  a child  of  six  being  taken  by  his  father  to  Houdon’s 
studio,  and,  on  looking  at  the  bird,  asking  “where  it  had  been 
wounded?”  The  father  tells  him  that  the  wound  is  probably  con- 
cealed. “But,  papa,  of  what  is  the  bird  made?”  “Of  marble,  my 
boy.”  “Ah,  indeed,”  answers  the  child,  “are  feathers  made  of 
marble?”  Houdon,  from  this  story,  would  certainly  seem  to  have 
reached  perfection  in  simulation. 

It  has  often  been  related  as  an  example  of  our  artist’s  fecundity 
of  talent  that  he  exhibited  on  one  occasion  more  separate  works 
than  all  the  other  exhibiting  sculptors  combined.  This  striking 
fact  is  verified  by  the  catalogue  of  the  Salon  of  the  year  1777. 
There  were  on  this  occasion  ten  exhibitors  and  fifty-four  works 
shown.  We  are  speaking  now  only  of  sculpture.  Of  these  fifty- 
four  subjects  not  less  than  thirty  were  from  Houdon’s  hand.  This 
is  therefore  more  than  half  the  entire  number.  A single  artist  ex- 
hibits more  than  nine  others  combined! 

A group  of  four  busts  signed  by  him  attracted  general  notice. 
They  were  those  of  Monsieur  the  King’s  brother,  who  later  became 
Louis  XVIII,  his  wife,  and  the  King’s  two  aunts,  Mme.  Adelaide 
and  Mme.  Victoire.1  A critic  of  the  day,  writing  of  these  por- 
trait-busts, exclaims,  “One  must  needs  be  an  artist  himself  to  express 
in  detail  the  skill  of  Houdon’s  chisel  in  imitating  lace,  in  placing 

1 Montaiglon  and  Duplessis  speak,  p.  176,  of  these  ladies  being  the  sisters  of  Louis 
XVI.  Dierks  in  his  catalogue  of  Houdon’s  works  puts  them  as  sisters  of  Louis  XV. 
Of  course,  as  should  be  generally  known,  they  were  daughters  of  Louis  XV  and  conse- 
quently aunts  of  Louis  XVI. 


HDUDUMCDT 


. 


/ 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  21 

the  hair,  in  showing  it  unbound,  in  dressing  it  with  elegance,  and  in 
representing  the  different  orders  of  the  Prince;  in  short,  in  render- 
ing all  the  accessories  with  no  less  truthfulness  than  that  of  the  souls 
of  his  models.”1 

In  connection  with  the  bust  of  Mine.  Adelaide,  there  is  a note  in 
Dierks2  stating  that  “the  bust  of  Mme.  Adeleyde  in  the  year  1785 
was  still  unpaid  for  . . . that  Houdon  claimed  payment  for  it  and 
got  it  with  some  difficulty.”  He  quotes  from  the  French  National 
Archives  to  support  this  statement,  and  also  gives  an  extract  from 
a letter  dated  January  22,  1785,  addressed  by  Houdon  to  the 
Abbe  Ruallemy,  private  secretary  of  that  Princess,  running  as  fol- 
lows: “You  have  led  me  to  hope,  so  obligingly,  that  you  will  inter- 
cede for  me  with  Mme.  Adeleyde  relative  to  the  bust  of  that  Prin- 
cess, for  which  the  price  has  been  owing  me  now  nine  years,  that  I 
venture  to  communicate  to  you  the  necessity  I am  under  to  recover 
the  sum  due  me  in  consequence  of  a projected  voyage.3  If  I am  so 
fortunate  as  to  obtain  through  your  intervention,  by  the  end  of  this 
month  or  the  beginning  of  next,  the  four  thousand  livres,  being  the 
price  agreed  upon  for  the  bust,  it  will  save  my  being  obliged  to  have 
recourse  to  the  always  troublesome  expedient  of  a loan.  This  price 
is  demandable;  the  column  and  pedestal  which  support  said  bust 
having  necessitated  extraordinary  expenditure  and  the  simplest  bust 
costing  1000  ecus.” 

1 Delerot  and  Legrelle,  p.  108. 

2 Houdon’s  “Leben  und  Werke,”  Hermann  Dierks,  Gotha,  1887,  p.  37. 

3 This  doubtless  refers  to  his  voyage  to  America,  undertaken  in  the  summer  of  that  year. 


22 


Life  and  Works  of 


Curiously  enough,  in  our  varied  researches  we  have  found  on  this 
side  of  the  water  at  Haverford  College,  Haverford,  Pennsylvania, 
among  the  Roberts  Collection  of  MSS.,  a signed  letter  of  Houdon’s 
bearing  on  this  very  question,  and  showing  conclusively  that  so  late 
as  1789  he  was  still  a claimant  for  the  sum  due  him  from  royalty. 
Unfortunately,  the  superscription  of  this  letter,  showing  to  whom  it 
was  addressed,  has  been  torn  off,  so  that  on  this  point  we  are  still  in 
the  dark.  The  letter  follows  in  full : 

Sir: 

I have  the  honor  to  make  reply,  that  having  gone  to  make  the  bust  of 
Mme.  Victoire,  agreeably  to  the  order  rec’d  from  that  Princess,  through 
M.  the  Comte  d’Altay,  now  some  9 or  10  years  since,  she  persuaded 
Mme.  Adelaide  to  have  hers  made  also;  that  in  the  same  way  at  the 
solicitation  of  these  ladies  Monsieur  and  Madame1  determined  to  con- 
fide to  me  the  execution  of  their  own,  and  that  at  the  last  sitting,  having 
thought  it  appropriate  to  ask  the  Prince  and  Princess  whether  it  was 
their  desire  to  have  the  busts  executed  in  marble,  they  said  they  so  wished 
it.  These  are  the  orders  I received  from  their  own  lips,  and  I am  re- 
minded that  having  presented  myself  for  admittance  at  Monsieur’s,  I 
was  asked  by  what  authority?  To  which  I replied  that  the  Prince  had 
bidden  me  call  at  that  hour,  and  that  immediately  the  door  was  opened 
to  me. 

When  after  several  years  I addressed  myself  to  each  house  for  pay- 
ment, Mme.  Adelaide  sent  me  word  to  apply  to  M.  the  Comte  d’Anguil- 
liers. 

The  letters  and  appeals  on  this  subject  addressed  to  M.  Pierre  and  the 
Director-General2  mention  the  period  at  which  these  works  were  exe- 


1 Afterward  Louis  XVIII,  and  wife. 


2 Director-General  of  Buildings. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  23 

cuted.  Neither  M.  Pierre  nor  the  Comte1  has  honored  with  their 
replies  my  various  statements,  which  I was  not  led  to  expect,  after  send- 
ing the  history  of  the  matter  to  M.  Pierre,  at  his  own  request,  for  presen- 
tation to  the  Director-General. 

I am,  Sir,  with  gratitude, 

Your  very  humble  and  obedient  servant, 

Houdon. 

At  Paris,  this  29th  January,  1789. 

In  the  light  of  the  information  furnished  by  this  letter,  it  is  not 
surprising  that  Houdon,  in  arranging  terms  for  his  voyage  to 
America,  should  have  made  the  stipulation  for  his  family  that  he 
did,  in  case  of  his  death.  Here  he  was  something  like  15,000  francs 
($3000)  out  of  pocket  for  the  execution  of  these  four  busts.  This 
was  poor  reward  for  an  artist  of  whose  exhibit  at  the  Salon  the 
“Secret  Memoirs”  under  date  of  September  22,  1777,  say,  “ . . . his 
other  busts  are  all  strikingly  varied,  and  if  I might  go  into  details 
it  would  be  seen  that  one  is  left  uncertain  as  to  the  style  of  head  in 
which  he  most  excels.  He  represents  in  turn,  majesty,  nobility,  the 
graces,  sprightliness,  severity,  ingenuity,  spirits,  genius— all  is 
differentiated  according  to  sex,  age,  character,  and  the  rank  of  the 
personages.  . . .”  An  admirable  and  truthful  summing  up  of 
Houdon’s  genius. 

There  were  not  wanting  ideal  works  as  well.  Mythology  fur- 
nished a brilliant  escort  to  the  royal  family.  Passing  over  studies 


1 Comte  d’Anguilliers. 


Life  and  Works  of 


24 

executed  in  terra-cotta  and  animals1  in  marble  on  which  we  have 
no  special  information,  we  find  a notable  bust  of  Diana,  to  be  re- 
ferred to  directly,  also  a medallion  of  Minerva  and  a Naiad  and 
Vestal,  both  of  delicate  conception.  The  “Diana,  Huntress”  bust,  to 
which  we  have  just  alluded,  was  detached  from  a statue  which 
Houdon  was  modeling,  as  some  accounts  state,  for  the  gardens  of 
the  Duke  of  Saxe-Gotha,  while  others  attribute  it  to  an  order  from 
the  Empress  of  Russia.  This  question  has  been  much  discussed  of 
late  in  French  journals,  but  does  not  seem  likely  to  meet  with  solu- 
tion. In  the  Catalogue  of  the  Salon  of  1777,  under  the  number  248, 
is  written : “This  Diana  is  to  be  executed  in  marble,  and  placed  in 
the  gardens  of  his  Highness  the  Duke  of  Saxe-Gotha.”  This  ap- 
parently never  came  to  fruition,  for  the  only  exemplar  in  the  Mu- 
seum of  Gotha  is  a figure  in  gypsum.  What  has  come  to  light, 
however,  as  a result  of  the  discussion,  is  the  undoubted  fact  that  of 
this  celebrated  Diana,  “the  most  illustrious  example  of  the  nude 
feminine  in  French  statuary,”  as  Louis  Gonze  appreciates  it,  there 
have  been  two  distinct  productions.  Accustomed  as  we  are  to  the 
liberal  ideas  of  Frenchmen  where  matters  of  art  are  concerned,  it 
certainly  seemed  surprising  to  find  that  the  very  beautiful  statue  of 
Diana,  as  we  know  it  from  the  bronze  of  the  Louvre  and  the 
casts  that  have  been  made  from  it,  should  have  been  forbidden  ex- 
hibition by  the  Commissioners  of  the  Louvre  at  two  Salons:  those 

1 Life-size  greyhound  in  terra-cotta,  in  a private  collection  in  Paris.  Vide  “Un 
Levrier.  Terre-cuite  originale  de  Houdon.  Par  Georges  Giacometti.  Paris,  1904.” 


AID)  Am  IE  ¥ICT(D)IJRE 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  25 

of  1777  and  1781.  Now  that  we  have  seen  a reproduction  of  the 
marble  at  St.  Petersburg,  published  in  “Les  Arts”  for  January, 
1907,  it  is  easy  to  understand  the  scruples  which  might  have  influ- 
enced even  a very  liberal-minded  jury.  As  the  writer  in  “Les  Arts” 
puts  it,  “The  marble  at  St.  Petersburg  enters  into  naturalistic  detail, 
and  is  objectionable  on  this  account.”  It  was  of  this  same  marble 
that  La  Harpe  in  his  “Compendium  Litteraire”  wrote:  “It  is  too 
lovely  and  too  nude  for  a statue  intended  for  public  exhibition.” 

The  bronze  of  the  Museum  at  Tours,  cast  in  1839,  is  said  to  be 
from  the  same  original  model;  in  fact,  it  bears  the  signature  of 
Houdon  and  the  date  1776,  showing  that  these  had  been  preserved 
in  the  plaster.  This  is  undoubtedly  the  model  shown  at  Houdon’s 
studio  in  1777,  failing  the  right  of  exhibition  at  the  Salon  of  the 
same  year.  The  second  exemplar,  of  bronze,  made  for  Girardot  de 
Marigny,  is  dated  1782,  and  is  similar  to  the  one  at  the  Louvre, 
which  is  dated  1790.  The  Marigny  bronze  is  noted  in  the  Cata- 
logue of  the  Salon  of  1783  as  being  on  exhibition  at  the  house  of  the 
Marquis.  Leaving  out  the  original  plaster,  there  were  then  two 
unexpurgated  statues— one  of  marble  and  one  of  bronze— while  in 
the  amended  form  two  bronzes  exist:  the  one  at  the  Louvre,  of 
1790,  and  the  Marigny  statue,  which  atone  time  was  at  “Bagatelle,” 
having  been  acquired  by  Lord  Hertford  in  1870.1  Placed  in  the 
gardens  of  “Bagatelle”  by  the  latter,  it  was  sold  by  Mr.  Scott,  who 

1 See  Montaiglon:  “Nouvelles  Archives  de  l’Art  Frangais,”  1879,  p.  271.  Lady  Dilke 
states  the  price  said  to  have  been  paid  by  Lord  Hertford  as  23,500  francs,  and  the  date 
May  20,  1870. 


1 6 


Life  and  Works  of 


inherited  the  place,  with  its  contents,  at  the  same  time  that  the 
celebrated  Wallace  collection  was  transferred  to  England.  It 
could  have  been  seen  in  Paris  in  1902,  at  Duveen’s,  who  disposed  of 
it  to  Charles  T.  Yerkes,  of  New  York,  for  $70,000;  and  at  the  sale 
of  the  Yerkes  collection  in  April,  1910,  it  was  sold  for  $51,000, 
when  it  was  repurchased  by  Duveen  and  returned  to  Europe.  In 
the  marble  statue,  Diana  carries  a quiver  of  arrows  under  the  left 
arm  and  her  bow  in  the  left  hand ; but  in  the  bronze  of  the  Louvre, 
as  also  the  one  at  Tours  and  the  plaster  model  at  Gotha,  a single 
arrow  is  held  in  the  right  hand  and  the  bow  carried  in  the  left, 
while  no  quiver  of  arrows  is  introduced.  We  much  prefer  the  last 
composition;  it  is  more  in  keeping  with  the  nudity  of  a “Diana, 
Huntress”;  as  if  she  had  sprung  to  her  feet  in  some  sudden  alarm, 
and  not,  as  the  quiver  thrown  over  the  shoulder  suggests,  as  having 
formally  prepared  herself  for  a hunting  excursion.  The  arrow  in 
the  right  hand  seems  to  balance  the  figure,  so  lightly  poised  on  one 
foot,  and  gives  an  effect  of  lightness  and  grace,  which  the  artist 
doubtless  intended  to  convey  by  the  use  of  the  arrow,  an  emblem 
itself  of  the  very  quality  he  desired  to  express.  The  marble  statue 
at  the  Hermitage  differs  also  in  another  detail : in  order  to  support 
the  figure  of  Diana,  made  necessary  by  its  execution  in  marble, 
Houdon  has  introduced  a thicket  of  reeds  on  which  the  goddess 
lightly  rests  her  weight,  while  she  appears  to  be  brushing  the  ob- 
stacle from  her  path.  “It  was  much  feared  that  in  executing  the 
plaster  of  this  graceful  conception  in  marble,  Houdon  might  by  the 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  27 

difficulties  of  execution  be  obliged  to  curtail  a portion  of  its  light- 
ness to  insure  its  solidity.  But  he  conceived  a means  of  support 
which  in  no  way  detracted  from  its  primitive  form.” 

We  agree,  however,  with  the  judgment  of  others  “that  the  Diana 
of  the  Louvre  is  much  lighter  standing  in  empty  space  than  among 
the  reeds,  which  must  retard  her  flight.”  But  the  material  itself  ap- 
parently lent  much  effect,  being  of  “dazzling  whiteness,  which  can 
only  be  compared,”  continue  the  “Secret  Memoirs,”  “to  the  ex- 
ceeding purity  of  the  Goddess  herself.” 

One  of  the  most  modern  of  critics  on  French  art,  W.  C.  Brownell, 
in  his  “Classic  and  Contemporary  Painting  and  Sculpture”  (p. 
1 53 ) , says  of  the  Diana: 

“Houdon  is  one  of  the  finest  examples  of  the  union  of  vigor  with 
grace.  He  will  be  known  chiefly  as  a portraitist,  but  such  a mas- 
terpiece as  his  Diana  shows  how  admirable  he  was  in  the  sphere 
of  purely  imaginative  theme  and  treatment.  Classic,  and  even 
conventionally  classic,  as  it  is,  both  in  subject  and  in  the  way  the 
subject  is  handled,  it  is  designed  and  modelled  with  as  much  per- 
sonal freedom  and  feeling  as  if  Houdon  had  been  stimulated  by  the 
ambition  of  novel  accomplishment,  instead  of  that  of  rendering 
with  truth  and  grace  a time-honored  and  traditional  sculptural 
motive.  Its  treatment  is  beautifully  educated  and  its  effect  refined, 
chaste,  and  elevated  in  an  extraordinary  degree.” 

Various  theories  have  been  advanced  as  to  the  reason  of  Hou- 
don’s  deviation  from  conventional  rules  in  representing  a nude 


28 


Life  and  Works  of 


Diana.  Delerot  and  Legrelle  are  quite  positive  that  it  was  intended 
as  a reproof  to  Allegrain,  whose  Diana  at  the  Bath  had  just  ap- 
peared1 and  had  met  with  considerable  success  at  the  Salon;  also 
as  a protest  against  the  morbidity  of  style  so  prevalent  at  this  period. 
To  quote  them: 

“But  drapery  would  have  rendered  abortive  any  comparison. 
What  it  was  tacitly  desired  to  point  out  in  Allegrain,  by  its  absence 
in  the  new  Diana,  were  those  heavy  forms  bordering  on  what  has 
since  come  to  be  known  as  morbidity,  and  only  attaining,  after  mis- 
taken effort,  a heaviness  of  outline  without  any  mark  of  distinction. 
. . . It  was  necessary  to  oppose  a light  and  airy  design,  a thing  un- 
known since  the  Renaissance.” 

This  is  ingenious  and  very  well  expressed  and  seems  fairly  prob- 
able. An  entirely  different  view,  however,  is  taken  by  Paul  Vitry, 
writing  in  “Les  Arts”  for  1907: 

“After  all,  it  was  probably  audacity  and  fancy  without  much  re- 
flection that  urged  on  the  clever  artist,  little  equipped  as  he  was 
with  a knowledge  of  mythology,  to  this  conception  of  a Diana,  un- 
clothed, as  a huntress,  and  we  certainly  concede  to  him  to-day  with- 
out vain  argument  the  right  to  satisfy  his  desire  for  plastic  and 
animated  beauty,  even  at  the  expense  of  literary  truth.” 

The  charge  here  made  against  Houdon  as  lacking  any  know- 
ledge of  mythology  hardly  seems  borne  out,  as  witness  some  of  his 
earlier  productions.  The  first  piano  by  Sebastian  firard,  placed  in 

1 Salon  of  1777. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  29 

the  Chateau  Bellevue  belonging  to  the  aunts  of  Louis  XVI,  and 
decorated  by  Boucher,  Greuze  and  Vanloo,  is  said  to  have  also 
“had  the  pedals  covered  with  a group  from  mythology  executed 
by  Houdon.”1 

This  statue  added  greatly  to  Houdon’s  reputation.  “No  other 
creation  of  Houdon’s  received  such  unqualified  praise  from  con- 
temporaries as  this  one,  and  no  other  speaks  to  us  so  freely  of  the 
spirit  of  the  time.  Poems  were  addressed  to  it.”2 

In  the  Grimm-Diderot  Correspondance  (1879),  Vol.  II,  page 
529,  under  date  of  September,  1777,  we  read: 

“M.  Houdon’s  modesty  has  induced  him  to  make  every  effort  for 
preventing  the  verses  addressed  to  him  from  all  sides  appearing  in 
print.  Here  are  some  lines  written  by  M.  de  Rulhiere  on  the  spur 
of  the  moment,  after  having  admired  his  Diana: 

“ ‘Oui,  c’est  Diane,  et  mon  oeii  enchante 
Desire  dans  sa  course  atteindre  la  deesse, 

Et  mes  regards  devancent  sa  vitesse. 

Aucun  habillement  ne  voile  sa  beaute, 

Mais  son  effroi  lui  rend  sa  chastete. 

On  aurait  dans  Ephese  adore  ton  ouvrage, 

Rival  de  Phidias,  ingenieux  Houdon, 

A moins  que  les  devots,  en  voyant  ton  image, 

N’eussent  craint  le  sort  d’Acteon.’  ” 

An  oft-quoted  letter  of  Louis  de  Boissy,  praising  the  statue,  ap- 

1 “Autour  de  la  Statue  de  Jean  Houdon,”  by  Albert  Terrade,  Versailles,  1892,  p.  15. 

2 Dr.  Hermann  Dierks,  Houdon’s  “Leben  und  Werke,”  p.  46. 


30 


Life  and  Works  of 


peared  in  the  “Journal  de  Paris”  of  April  14,  1778,  page  415,  and 
Houdon’s  answer  was  published  in  the  same  journal  on  the  16th 
of  April.  Boissy,  in  the  course  of  his  letter,  had  extolled  the  Diana 
as  “the  sister  of  Apollo— that  divine  Apollo  of  the  Vatican,  the  only 
figure  on  earth  giving  us  the  idea  of  a God.”  To  which  Houdon, 
after  thanking  him  for  the  flattering  things  said  of  him,  very  mod- 
estly goes  on  to  say,  “As  to  my  Diana:  although  it  has  been  the 
work  entailing  on  me  the  greatest  labor,  I cannot  agree  with  the 
parallel  you  draw.  As  you  know  the  Apollo  of  the  Vatican,  and 
judging  from  signs  you  are  an  amateur  of  sculpture,  you  will  agree 
that  my  piece  does  not  approach  it.  What  I say  is  not  through 
modesty;  but,  with  very  slight  reservation,  I found  that  figure  per- 
fect, and  you  know  that  in  the  arts  what  is  called  perfect  is  simply 
what  approaches  perfection.  My  Diana  is  not  in  this  class;  I feel 
it,  in  spite  of  what  the  artists  and  my  confreres  have  said  in  its 
praise,  and  in  spite  of  their  praise  having  made  me  alive  to  certain 
faults,  which  augurs  well,  for  an  author  is  usually  indiscriminately 
praised  when  a work  is  found  bad  throughout.” 

We  see  that  success  had  not  turned  Houdon’s  head;  modesty  has 
always  been  claimed  as  his  distinct  attribute,  and  thus  far  nothing 
would  seem  to  contradict  so  flattering  a judgment.  These  seven  or 
eight  years  in  Houdon’s  career  which  we  have  endeavored  to  depict 
have  brought  him  almost  to  the  summit  of  his  art;  the  next  three 
will  see  this  actually  accomplished.  So  that  within  ten  years  of  his 
return  to  Paris  and  entrance  there  into  the  competitive  field  of  art, 


>.  ■ 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  31 

he  triumphed  over  all  difficulties  and  became  the  acknowledged 
and  unrivaled  sculptor  of  his  time.  Not  only  that,  he  accomplished 
more,  for  he  comes  down  to  us  in  history  as  being  certainly  the 
greatest  French  sculptor  of  the  eighteenth  century,  and  perhaps  of 
all  time. 


CHAPTER  III 

1778 

VOLTAIRE— HIS  BUSTS  AND  HIS  STATUE  IN  THE  COMEDIE-FRANQAISE— 
THE  BUST  CROWNED  AT  THE  SIXTH  REPRESENTATION  OF  “IRENE” 
SHOWN  TO  HAVE  BEEN  BY  HOUDON 

HEN,  in  the  full  maturity  of  his  talent,  Houdon  modeled 
the  image  of  Voltaire,  he  was  already  the  author  of 
numerous  works  celebrated  at  once  on  their  appearance; 
none,  however,  so  much  as  this  one.  Even  if  not  the  most  perfect 
masterpiece  of  the  sculptor,  it  will  nevertheless  remain  his  most 
typical  work.  The  immense  popularity  of  the  author  of  ‘Candide,’ 
added  to  the  notoriety  gained  through  Houdon’s  rare  merit,  hence- 
forth indissolubly  bound  up  the  name  of  the  artist  with  that  of  his 
model.  In  consequence,  long  after,  perhaps  always,  and  in  spite  of 
the  fine  Saint  Bruno,  the  (female)  Bather,  the  Ecorche,  and  the 
Diana,  Houdon  will  be  designated  almost  exclusively  as  the  author 
of  the  statue  of  Voltaire.”1 

These  words  so  aptly  sum  up  the  fame  gained  by  Houdon 
through  this  wonderful  monument  that  we  have  quoted  them  at  the 
very  opening  of  our  chapter. 

1 P.  E.  Mangeant,  “Sur  une  Statuette  de  Voltaire,”  1896. 


32 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  33 

There  is  much  to  be  told,  however,  before  we  come  to  the  statue. 
Voltaire,  after  an  exile  from  Paris  of  about  twenty-seven  years, 
having  settled  himself  in  Berlin  so  early  as  1750,  returned,  when  a 
very  old  man  (eighty-four),  on  the  10th  of  February,  1778.  There 
is  an  amusing  account  given  of  the  arrival  of  Voltaire  and  his  party. 
“Our  voyagers  drew  up  in  front  of  the  city  gates  toward  half-past 
three  in  the  afternoon  on  the  10th  of  February.  ...  At  the  barrier 
the  clerks  asked  if  we  carried  anything  against  the  order  of  the 
King?  ‘By  my  faith,  gentlemen,’  replied  Voltaire,  ‘I  believe  there 
is  nothing  contraband  here  but  myself.’  m This  was  an  allusion  to 
the  attitude  of  French  royalty  toward  himself,  for,  while  no  actual 
decree  had  been  entered  against  him,  Louis  XV  in  granting  him 
leave  to  enter  the  service  of  the  King  of  Prussia  had  determined  not 
to  allow  him  to  return  to  Paris  during  his  own  lifetime.  What  the 
grandson’s  attitude  might  be  was  still  problematical.  Having  got 
to  Paris,  he  established  himself  in  the  house  of  M.  de  Villette,  who 
had  married  a former  member  of  his  household,  so  well  known  in 
the  annals  of  Voltaire  as  “belle  et  bonne.”  It  was  doubtless  owing 
to  the  exertions  of  the  Marquis  de  Villevieille  that  Houdon  almost 
immediately  obtained  the  favor  of  sittings.  The  Marquis  has  left 
on  record  a most  dramatic  account  of  one  of  these— the  last  one— 
at  which  he  was  present. 

“With  much  trouble  I induced  M.  Voltaire  to  lend  himself  to  the 
wish  that  Houdon  had  so  often  expressed  to  me  to  make  a statue  of 

1 “Voltaire  et  la  Societe  du  iS1®1116  Siecle,”  Desnoiresterres,  Vol.  VIII,  p.  192. 


Life  and  Works  of 


34 

him.  At  last  his  consent  was  torn  from  him,  the  day  fixed,  and  the 
periods  for  the  sittings  arranged.  I was  to  accompany  him  when- 
ever he  visited  the  studio.  I submitted  without  difficulty,  as  you 
may  suppose.  The  artist  having  frequently  observed  that  the  fea- 
tures of  his  model  only  betrayed  his  impatience,  that  constraint  and 
fatigue  clouded  his  brow,  and  that  the  fire  of  genius  died  from  his 
eyes,  I planned  to  bring  to  the  last  sitting  granted  by  M.  de  Voltaire 
the  wreath  which  the  actor  Brizard  had  placed  on  his  head,  before 
the  acclaiming  throng,  the  day  of  his  triumph  at  the  Comedie- 
Frangaise,— a wreath  which  I still  possess.  I notified  M.  Houdon 
that  at  a given  signal  between  us  I should  start  forward  to  the  plat- 
form where  M.  de  Voltaire  was  placed,  and  would  lay  the  wreath 
upon  his  head.  Without  doubt,’  I said  to  him,  ‘this  will  light  up 
his  countenance  and  you  can  then,  seizing  the  passing  flash,  inject 
the  life,  soul  and  truthfulness  which  should  animate  the  face,’  and 
which,  in  effect,  speak  to  us  from  the  masterpiece.  I carried  out 
with  much  good  fortune  what  I had  planned;  but  I had  hardly 
placed  the  wreath  on  the  venerable  head  when,  with  the  grace  that 
never  deserted  him,  he  waved  me  from  him.  ‘What  are  you  doing, 
young  man?’  spoke  the  illustrious  one.  ‘Place  it  on  my  tomb, 
which  opens  before  me.’  (He  suffered  already  from  severe  pains.) 
He  rises  immediately,  and  turning  toward  the  artist:  ‘Adieu,  Phi- 
dias’ ; then,  seizing  my  arm,  ‘My  friend,  let  us  go  die.’  ‘Oh,  my 
master,’  I cried,  ‘let  me  kiss  the  hand  once  more  that  wrote  “Zaire.”  ’ 
Then  his  tears  flowed  and  mixed  with  mine,  his  pains  became  in- 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  35 

tolerable,  he  returned  to  the  house,  and  a few  days  later  he  was  no 
more.”1 

The  first  step  toward  this  chef  d’ oeuvre,  produced  by  Houdon  as 
a result  of  these  life  sittings,  was  his  bust  at  the  Comedie-Frangaise, 
known  as  the  one  “with  wig”  ( avec  perruque).  This  he  first  exe- 
cuted in  plaster,  and  it  was  this  bust  which  at  the  sixth  representa- 
tion of  “Irene,”  on  the  30th  of  March,  1778,  was  brought  upon  the 
stage  to  be  crowned  and  garlanded  by  the  actors  in  the  presence  of 
Voltaire,  who  was  in  a box  with  his  niece  and  Mme.  de  Villette. 
At  the  Salon  of  the  following  year,  1779,  Houdon  exhibited  the 
marble  which  is  now  preserved  in  the  foyer  of  the  Comedie  and 
stands  on  a pedestal  immediately  beside  the  seated  statue.  Baron 
Grimm  writes: 

“ ...  Of  all  the  thousand  portraits  made  of  M.  de  Voltaire  in 
the  past  sixty  years,  it  is  the  only  one  with  which  he  himself  has  been 
perfectly  content.  . . . The  eyes  are  full  of  life  by  an  effect  of  light 
so  ingeniously  managed  that  M.  Greuze  himself  on  seeing  the  bust 
for  the  first  time  imagined  that  they  were  eyes  of  enamel  or  of  some 
other  colored  matter.  We  were  witnesses  with  several  others  of  an 
error  so  flattering  to  the  talent  of  his  confrere.”2 

Houdon  also  finished  a bust  of  Voltaire  a I’antique,  which  he 
exhibited  at  this  same  time  and  which  was  highly  praised.  It  is 
practically  the  same  head  represented  in  the  seated  statue,  except- 

1 “Account  of  the  Inauguration  of  a Statue  to  Voltaire  at  Montpellier,”  by  P.  E. 
Martin-Choisi,  Year  IX. 

2 Grimm-Diderot  Correspondance,  Vol.  XII  (1880),  p.  104. 


Life  and  Works  of 


36 

ing  that  in  the  latter  there  is  more  hair  apparent,  and  a cincture  is 
bound  about  his  locks,  giving  a classic  effect  without  in  the  least 
detracting  from  the  natural  and  life-like  expression  of  the  face. 

Catharine  of  Russia  again  showed  her  appreciation  of  our  artist’s 
talent  by  immediately  acquiring  this  bust  for  her  own  collection.1 
She  continuously  evinced  her  interest  in  his  genius,  for  we  shall  find 
later  on  that  an  obstacle  in  the  way  of  Houdon’s  visit  to  the  United 
States,  in  1785,  for  the  purpose  of  modeling  the  statue  of  Washing- 
ton, lay  in  his  engagements  to  Catharine. 

It  was  at  this  Salon  of  1779  that  Houdon  foreshadowed  his  later 
masterpiece  of  the  seated  figure  by  exhibiting  a statuette  of  Voltaire 
in  gilded  bronze,  also  intended  for  the  private  collection  of  the 
Russian  Empress.  The  “Secret  Memoirs”  (Vol.  XIII,  page  245), 
in  its  “Letters  on  the  Salon  of  1779,”  have  this  to  say  of  it: 

“Here  we  truly  have  the  old  man  of  Ferney;  he  is  enveloped  in 
the  folds  of  his  wrapper;  he  is  seated  in  his  elbow-chair,  the  hands 
resting  on  its  arms;2  he  has  come  in  from  his  walk,  he  is  fatigued 

1 Louis  Gonze  states  that  from  the  Salon  books  and  Sale  Catalogue,  Houdon  must 
have  made  at  least  six  marble  busts  of  Voltaire:  first,  the  three  admirable  busts,  cos- 
tumed with  wig,  of  the  Comedie-Frangaise,  Versailles,  and  the  Ministry  of  the  Interior, 
the  last  escaping  the  sack  of  the  Palais  Royal;  then  the  bust  draped  a lJ antique, 
executed  for  Catharine  of  Russia,  the  model  of  which  is  in  the  Museum  at  Gotha;  a 
bust  on  a variegated  pedestal  (Sale  of  1795);  and  finally,  at  the  Sale  of  1828,  a bust 
in  white  marble,  bare-headed,  on  a bracket  of  dark  blue  marble,  perhaps  the  one  in  the 
Angers  Museum,  he  thinks.  According  to  Gonze’s  view,  the  one  at  Versailles  is  the 
finest,  and  he  thinks  it  probable  that  this  is  the  one  formerly  belonging  to  the  Academy. 
“Chefs  d’CEuvres  des  Musees  de  France.” 

2 According  to  Louis  Gonze  (“Chef  d’CEuvres  des  Musees  de  France”),  in  the 
Museum  of  Angers  is  a cast  from  nature  by  Houdon  of  the  thin  long  hands  of  Voltaire, 


¥(D)MAIME 


Jean  Antoine  Hondon  37 

and  ready  to  retire.  This  is  the  familiar  scene  the  sculptor  has 
chosen;  but  in  spite  of  the  body’s  lassitude,  his  virile  spirit  and  the 
sardonic  laughter  of  his  face  mark  the  flow  of  ridicule  running 
through  his  final  meditations.  He  is  immensely  amused  over  the 
fools,  the  priests,  the  fanatics,  whom  he  intends  holding  up  again 
to  general  ridicule.  It  must  be  confessed  that  in  this  little  figure,  of 
less  than  a foot  in  height,  there  is  more  genius  than  in  those  ordered 
by  the  court,  the  one  of  Corneille1  excepted.” 

This  statuette  for  a long  time  could  be  seen  at  the  Hermitage,  in 
St.  Petersburg.  There  is  a note  in  P.  E.  Mangeant’s  monograph 
already  quoted,  stating  that  “in  1851  the  administration  of  the 
Hermitage,  knowing  how  little  sympathy  the  Emperor  Nicholas  I 
entertained  for  Voltaire,  and  having  no  appreciation  of  the  artistic 
merit  of  the  statuette,  disposed  of  it  at  the  same  time  with  some 
other  works  of  art  which  seemed  to  them  to  have  little  value.  The 
statuette  was  purchased  at  this  period  by  the  Count  Andre  Paolo- 
vitch  Shouwalow,  marechal  de  la  noblesse  de  Saint  Petersburg,  as 
related  by  himself  in  1876,  for  fifteen  roubles,  about  fifty  francs.” 
At  the  crowning  of  the  emperor  Alexander  in  1856,  the  Due  de 
Morny,  being  at  St.  Petersburg  as  envoy  extraordinary  and  get- 
ting a view  of  this  beautiful  statuette  at  Count  Shouwalow’s,  begged 

and  said  by  one  who  has  seen  them  to  have  “the  expression  and  the  drawing  of  the 
admirable  hands  that  the  artist  made  to  his  statue  at  the  Comedie-Frangaise.”  Upon  the 
cast  is  the  inscription,  “h.  31  May,  1778.”  This  was  the  day  immediately  following  the 
day  of  Voltaire’s  death. 

1 “Corneille  seated,”  by  Caffieri. 


Life  and  Works  of 


38 

him  to  sell  it  to  him  for  50,000  francs,  but  the  Count  would  not 
consent  We  read  in  a record  of  Voltaire’s  career  that  in  1757, 
being  encouraged  to  write  a history  of  Russia,  “Count  Jean  Shou- 
walow  furnished  him  with  data.”  So  the  later  descendant  seems  to 
have  inherited  his  ancestor’s  admiration  for  Voltaire. 

While  on  the  subject  of  the  busts,  it  will  be  well  to  ask  the  atten- 
tion of  our  readers  to  a controversy  that  has  agitated  writers  during 
the  last  thirty  years,  as  to  the  identity  of  the  bust  figuring,  at  the 
Theatre-Frangais,  on  the  night  of  Voltaire’s  appearing  there  at  the 
sixth  representation  of  “Irene,”  on  the  30th  of  March,  1778.  Un- 
til the  appearance  of  J.  J.  Guiffrey’s  book,  “Les  Caffieris,”  pub- 
lished at  Paris  in  1877,  it  had  always  been  accepted  that  the  bust 
brought  forward  upon  the  stage  in  honor  of  the  author  and  crowned 
and  garlanded  by  the  actors  in  his  presence,  was,  as  already  stated, 
the  plaster  bust  modeled  by  Houdon  from  the  sittings  given  him  by 
Voltaire  immediately  on  his  arrival  in  Paris  from  Ferney. 

M.  Guiffrey,  however,  asserted  that,  from  evidence  he  had  dis- 
covered, the  bust  used  on  that  occasion  was  one  by  Jean  Jacques 
Caffieri,  a clever  sculptor,  but  a most  cantankerous  character,  whose 
chief  aim  in  life,  after  Houdon’s  fame  was  assured  and  recognized, 
seemed  an  effort— most  vain  indeed— to  detract  from  his  great  repu- 
tation. Guiffrey  here  fell  into  an  astounding  error;  for,  basing  his 
assertion  on  a letter  of  acceptance  from  the  Comedie-Frangaise,  ad- 
dressed to  Caffieri,  he  entirely  overlooked  the  fact  that  this  letter 
was  in  answer  to  a note  from  Caffieri  asking  the  Comedie’s  accept- 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  39 

ance  of  a bust  of  Voltaire  by  Le  Moyne . We  cannot  do  better  than 
quote  Caffieri’s  letter,  preserved  among  the  archives  of  the  Co- 
medie-Frangaise  and  dated  Paris,  16th  February,  1778. 

“Since  the  arrival  of  M.  de  Voltaire,  I have  heard  it  argued 
among  several  people  of  distinction  in  your  own  foyer  that 
Messieurs  the  Comedians  should  have  the  portrait  of  M.  de  Vol- 
taire placed  there,  and  that  such  homage  should  be  rendered  his 
great  talents;  it  is  with  the  same  idea  that  I make  you  an  offer, 
gentlemen,  of  a bust  in  plaster  made  by  M.  Le  Moyne.  This  por- 
trait was  made  at  the  period  when  M.  de  Voltaire  produced  his 
noblest  works.  Although  the  Comedie  has  made  a rule  not  to  ad- 
mit the  portraits  of  living  authors,  M.  de  Voltaire  would  seem  to 
be  the  exception. 

“If  the  offer,  gentlemen,  that  I have  the  honor  to  make  you  is 
agreeable,  I shall  have  the  bust  placed  whenever  it  may  please  you, 
I shall  have  no  greater  merit  than  to  provide  for  you  and  for  the 
public  the  pleasure  of  seeing  the  portrait  of  a great  man  to  whom 
all  Europe  pays  homage.”1 

This  makes  it  very  clear  by  whom  this  particular  bust  that  Caf- 
fieri  was  offering  had  been  executed.  We  now  give  the  letter  of 
the  Comedie  in  answer  to  the  above,  the  one  upon  which  Guiffrey, 
without  looking  up  further  proof,  assumes,  quite  positively,  that 
the  Comedie  were  accepting  a bust  by  Caffieri. 


1 “Archives  of  Comedie-Fran^aise.”  Dossier  de  Caffieri. 


Life  and  Works  of 


4o 
Sir: 

The  Comedie  recognizes  in  the  offer  you  make  it  both  the  sincerity 
and  love  of  genius  that  stamp  your  own  works  of  great  men;  it  thanks 
you  for  the  present  you  are  willing  to  make  it,  and  accepts  it  with  a grati- 
tude proportioned  to  its  love  and  admiration  for  the  immortal  character 
whom  the  bust  represents.  It  is  sensible,  however,  of  the  danger  it 
would  run  in  placing  any  other  but  a Voltaire  in  the  foyer  during  his 
actual  lifetime  in  company  with  a Corneille  and  a Racine.  It  will  pro- 
ceed to  pass  a resolution  which  shall  attest  the  merited  exception  in  the 
case  of  M.  de  Voltaire,  and  the  reasons  which  induce  the  Comedie  to 
break  in  his  favor  its  rule  of  only  admitting  the  dead. 

The  great  age  of  M.  de  Voltaire  is  an  excuse;  the  impatience  to  im- 
mortalize him  does  not  reflect  on  his  long  life;  but  thanks  to  it  he  gets 
cash  payment  for  what  Moliere  and  Corneille  hastened  too  much  to  ob- 
tain by  premature  deaths. 

Des  Essarts. 

16th  March,  1778. 

Upon  this  state  of  things  Guiffrey  constructed  an  hypothesis: 
first,  that  Caffieri  had  made  a bust  of  Voltaire  and  presented  it  to 
the  Comedie;  second,  that  this  bust  was  in  the  foyer  when  the  per- 
formance of  “Irene”  on  the  30th  of  March  took  place;  third,  that 
this  was  the  bust  carried  upon  the  stage  and  crowned  and  garlanded 
in  the  presence  of  Voltaire. 

As  to  the  first  contention,  we  have  shown  by  Caffieri’s  own  words 
that  he  did  not  offer  a bust  of  his  own,  but  one  by  Le  Moyne.  As 
to  the  second,  it  is  not  at  all  clear  that  this  bust  found  its  way  im- 
mediately to  the  foyer  of  the  Comedie,  for  the  latter’s  answer  to 
Caffieri  speaks  of  a resolution  it  “is  about  to  pass,”  looking  to 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  41 

the  reception  of  the  bust  in  the  future.  Third,  we  are  able  to  show 
positively  that  Houdon’s  bust  was  the  one  brought  upon  the  stage  at 
the  sixth  representation  of  “Irene.” 

An  examination  of  the  catalogue  of  the  works  of  art  belonging 
to  the  Comedie-Frangaise  and  their  history,  published  in  1897,  dis- 
closed the  fact  that,  while  quoting  M.  Guiffrey’s  book  with  ap- 
proval, no  reference  was  made  to  the  very  palpable  error  in  it  of 
attributing  the  Le  Moyne  bust  of  Voltaire  to  Caffieri.  We  include 
a letter  which  was  addressed  to  the  Comedie  and  the  reply. 


To  M.  Jules  Claretie, 

Director  of  the  Theatre-Frangais. 

Sir: 

In  reading  recently  your  Introduction  to  the  “Collections  of  the  Co- 
medie-Frangaise” by  M.  Monval,  I find  on  page  5 : “Caffieri  sends  to 
the  Comedians  the  Voltaire  of  his  master,  J.  B.  Le  Moyne.” 

I am  collaborating  on  a Life  of  Houdon  in  English,  and  sought  for 
information  in  the  “Collections  de  la  Comedie-Frangaise.”  Allow  me, 
Sir,  to  ask  the  source  of  this  citation. 

Neither  the  “Memoires”  of  Houdon  by  Montaiglon  and  Duplessis, 
nor  those  by  Delerot  and  Legrelle,  nor  the  exhaustive  work  by  J.  J.  Guif- 
frey,  “Les  Caffieris,”  contain  such  a reference;  the  last  named,  on  the 
contrary,  champions  the  theory  that  the  bust  of  Voltaire  crowned  at  the 
sixth  representation  of  “Irene”  was  a bust  by  Caffieri not  by  Le  Moyne. 
The  letter  from  Caffieri  which  J.  J.  Guiffrey  quotes  in  full  on  pages  3 5 5— 
356  speaks  of  a bust  of  /.  /.  Rousseau  by  Le  Moyne. 

I am  endeavoring  to  be  exact  and  accurate,  and  I venture  to  hope,  Sir, 
that  you  will  find  time  to  send  me  a few  lines  on  the  question  submitted. 

I beg  you  to  accept,  Sir,  the  expression  of  my  highest  consideration 
and  good  wishes  from  across  the  water.  g Biddle 


42 


Life  and  Works  of 


1680-1906 

Comedie-Fran^aise 

Paris,  25  Xbre  [1906]. 

Sir: 

In  reply  to  the  letter  that  you  addressed  to  the  Administrator,  here  is 
the  information  you  ask  for. 

The  “Mercure  de  France”  of  April,  1778,  Vol.  I,  p.  169,  says  on  the 
subject  of  Voltaire’s  arrival  in  Paris: 

“The  Comedie-Frangaise,  so  rich  in  the  fruits  of  his  labors,  has  done 
homage  to  him.  His  bust  in  marble,  a work  of  M.  le  Moine’s  and  a gift 
from  M.  Caffieri,  both  celebrated  sculptors,  has  been  placed  in  the  foyer 
of  the  Comedie.” 

It  is  this  bust  which,  on  Monday,  the  30th  of  March,  1778,  at  the  sixth 
representation  of  “Irene,”  was  carried  on  the  stage  and  crowned  and  gar- 
landed, after  Mme.  Vestris  had  recited  the  verses  composed  by  the 
Marquis  of  Saint-Marc. 

The  letter  in  which  Caffieri  offered  this  bust  to  the  Comedians,  on  16th 
February,  1778,  informs  us  that  this  bust  was  not  in  marble,  but  in 
plaster:  “I  offer  you,”  he  says,  “gentlemen,  a bust  in  plaster  made  by  M. 
Le  Moyne;  the  portrait  was  made  in  the  time  when  M.  de  Voltaire  was 
producing  his  greatest  works.” 

This  bust  has  disappeared,  and  it  is  very  probable  that  it  was  broken, 
which  would  not  have  happened  if  it  had  been  of  marble,  as  stated  in 
the  “Mercure.” 

Please  accept,  Sir,  the  assurance  of  my  distinguished  consideration. 

C.  Ouis. 

Mr.  Edward  Biddle. 

Having  thus  disposed  of  the  Guiffrey -Caffieri  legend,  we  are  left 
to  combat  the  very  positive  assertion  over  the  hand  of  the  Comedie, 
that  “it  is  this  bust  [Le  Moyne’s]  which,  on  Monday,  the  30th  of 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  43 

March,  1778,  at  the  sixth  representation  of  ‘Irene,’  was  carried  on 
the  stage  and  crowned  and  garlanded” ; and  this  we  are  able  to  do 
successfully. 

The  chief  reliance  of  the  opponents  to  Houdon’s  bust  is  the 
shortness  of  time  elapsing  between  Voltaire’s  arrival  in  Paris,  on 
the  10th  of  February,  1778,  and  the  sixth  representation  of  “Irene” 
on  the  30th  of  March.  We  reply  to  this  that  it  is  an  uncontradicted 
fact  that  Voltaire  sat  to  Houdon  very  soon  after  reaching  Paris.  If 
merely  circumstantial  evidence  were  needed,  we  think  that  the  offer 
of  Le  Moyne’s  bust  to  the  Comedie,  on  the  16th  of  February,  by 
Caffieri,  is  strong  presumption  that  the  latter  had  got  wind  of  the 
sittings  and  was,  as  usual,  endeavoring  to  head  off  Houdon.  Guif- 
frey  himself  suggests  such  a reason  in  the  case  of  Rousseau’s  bust, 
under  precisely  similar  circumstances;  but,  to  any  one  familiar 
with  Houdon’s  untiring  industry  and  skill  as  shown  in  the  history 
of  his  career,  nothing  is  easier  to  suppose  than  that  in  a period  of 
time  such  as  the  one  in  question,  something  over  six  weeks,  and 
with  sittings  given  him,  Houdon  could  have  completed  his  plaster 
bust.  This  celerity  of  execution  would  be  nothing  in  comparison 
with  his  accomplishment  at  Mount  Vernon,  when  he  modeled  the 
bust  of  Washington  and  cast  it  within  two  weeks. 

But  we  do  not  have  to  suppose  anything  about  it;  for,  against  the 
multitude  of  suppositions  raised  by  the  opponents  to  this  view,  in 
trying  to  show  that  it  was  a physical  impossibility  for  Houdon  to 
have  completed  his  bust  in  so  short  a time,  we  have  the  positive 


44 


Life  and  Works  of 


statements  of  the  day  that  he  did  complete  such  a bust.  The  “Se- 
cret Memoirs,”  under  date  of  April  19,  1778,  say:  “There  has  been 
on  view  for  some  time  in  M.  Houdon’s  studio  a bust  of  Moliere 
executed  for  the  foyer  of  the  Comedie-Frangaise.  It  is  very  fine 
. . . and  the  same  artist  has  just  executed  a bust  of  Voltaire” 
While  three  days  earlier  the  “Correspondance  Secrete”1  for  April 
16,  1778,  says:  “All  Paris  is  going  to  see,  at  M.  Houdon’s,  a bust  of 
Voltaire,  which,  without  fear  of  contradiction,  is  more  strikingly 
like  him  than  all  other  portraits  ever  made  of  this  patriarch.”  But 
here  is  yet  stronger  proof.  On  the  4th  of  April  the  French  Acad- 
emy decide  to  have  a portrait  painted  from  Houdon’s  bust  as  a 
companion  to  the  painting  by  Largilliere  of  Voltaire  in  his  youth. 
Desnoiresterres,2  in  speaking  of  this,  prefaces  it  by  saying,  “The 
bust  of  Voltaire,  which  is  dated  as  of  1778,  was  finished  during  the 
last  days  of  March.”  Guiffrey  endeavors  to  combat  the  records  of 
the  “Memoires  Secrets”  by  saying  that  it  was  quite  out  of  the  ques- 
tion to  suppose  that,  even  admitting  the  bust  to  have  been  finished 
before  the  30th  of  March,  it  could  have  been  taken  to  the  Comedie 
and  returned  to  Houdon’s  studio  afterward.  We  fail  to  see  why; 
but,  granting  it  for  the  sake  of  argument,  what  was  to  prevent  Hou- 
don  having  a second  cast  on  view  at  his  studio?  We  see  in  this 
reasoning  of  Guiffrey  evidence  that  he  is  arguing  from  the  stand- 
point of  a finished  marble  bust,  and  this  is  where  he  is  again  in 
error.  But  when  we  get  to  the  4th  of  April,  five  days  only  after  the 
1 Vol.  VI,  p.  164. 


2 “Iconographie  Voltairienne,”  p.  113. 


VCDILTAIM:®  A 3L  MTMQTU1 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  45 

memorable  sixth  performance  of  “Irene,”  and  find  the  French 
Academy  ordering  a portrait  from  the  Houdon  bust,  the  inference 
is  irresistible  that  such  a bust  had  been  in  existence  on  the  30th  of 
March. 

To  go  back  for  a moment  to  Guiffrey,  in  arguing  for  Caffieri’s 
supposed  bust,  he  says  (page  276)  : “This  bust  was  certainly  mod- 
eled then  between  the  10th  of  February  and  the  15th  of  March. 
This  rapidity  of  execution  has  nothing  in  it  to  surprise  one  in  a man 
of  Caffieri  s skill” ; and  on  pages  285  and  286,  in  a comparison  of  the 
two  artists,  “he  [Caffieri]  was  neglected  for  a younger  competitor 
[Houdon],  also  more  productive  and,  it  must  be  said,  more  skil- 
fulr 

We  find,  therefore,  Guiffrey  arguing  for  Caffieri  from  premises 
infinitely  stronger  when  applied  to  Houdon. 

The  only  existing  record  of  Le  Moyne’s  bust  is  an  engraving  by 
Augustin  de  St.  Aubin.  The  bust  was  made  in  1748,  and  it  would 
seem  inconceivable  that  a likeness  made  thirty  years  before  should 
be  the  one  selected  for  an  occasion  such  as  the  sixth  representation  of 
“Irene,”  the  author  being  present,  and  his  bust  by  the  most  eminent 
sculptor  of  the  day,  just  finished  and  of  wonderful  truthfulness, 
being,  as  far  as  we  can  see,  available.  As  to  the  expression  used  by 
Caffieri,  in  his  letter  offering  Le  Moyne’s  bust,  “this  portrait  was 
made  at  the  time  when  M.  Voltaire  was  producing  his  noblest 
works,”  presenting  any  reason  for  the  selection  of  that  bust  in 
preference  to  Houdon’s,  we  can  reply  that  “Irene,”  the  play  at 


Life  and  Works  of 


46 

which  so  much  enthusiasm  was  evoked,  was  the  play  of  Voltaire’s 
old  age.1 

The  date  at  which  the  marble  bust  of  Voltaire  was  placed  in  the 
foyer  of  the  Comedie,  February  18,  1779,  has  also  been  advanced 
by  some  of  the  later  writers  as  a reason  why  the  bust  crowned  and 
garlanded  could  not  have  been  the  bust  by  Houdon.  But  we  main- 
tain that  it  is  not  a question  of  a finished  marble  bust,  done  later, 
but  of  the  one  made  first  in  plaster. 

We  have  had  access  to  another  book  upon  the  Musee  of  the  Co- 
medie-Frangaise,  by  M.  fimile  Dacier,  published  so  recently  as  the 
year  1905.  Relating  to  the  question  we  have  just  been  discussing, 
the  writer  says:  “In  1777  . . . Caffieri  sends  a bust  in  marble  of 
Pierre  Corneille,  . . . in  1778  he  gives  a Voltaire,  to-day  miss- 
ing,” and  in  a note  to  this  adds,  “a  plaster  cast  of  the  Voltaire  by 
Caffieri  ( and  not  by  Le  Moyne,  as  M . Monval  has  written)  wasi 
used  at  the  crowning  of  the  30th  of  March,  1778,  at  the  sixth 
representation  of  ‘Irene.’  See  Guiffrey,  ‘Les  Caffieris.’  ”2 

Here  we  have  the  old  error  reiterated,  and  we  are  astounded  at 
such  heedless  inaccuracy.  As  this  book  also  contains  a preface  by 

1 Begun  in  1776;  finished  in  1777.  Beuchot,  “Life  of  Voltaire.” 

2 M.  Stanislas  Lami,  the  author  of  a dictionary  of  French  sculptors  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century,  appearing  at  the  present  time,  and  widely  heralded,  under  “Caffieri” 
gives  a list  of  the  latter’s  works;  among  them,  “Voltaire:  bust  executed  for  the  Comedie- 
Franqaise  between  the  10th  of  February  and  the  15th  of  March,  1778.  It  is  this  bust 
which  figured  in  the  ceremony  of  the  crowning  of  Voltaire,  following  the  sixth  repre- 
sentation of  ‘Irene,’  on  the  30th  of  March,  1778.  It  is  not  known  what  has  become  of 
it.”  He  adds  in  a foot-note,  “M.  Jules  Guiffrey  has  established  this  fact  in  a positive 
way  in  his  fine  work  on  the  Caffieris,  p.  276  and  following.” 


COURONNEMENT  DE  VOLTAIRE 

SUR  LE  ThEATRE-FrAN£AIS,  LE  30  MARS,  1778,  APRES  LA  SlXIEME  REPRESENTATION  D’IrENE 
Center  of  print  engraved  by  C.  E.  Gaucher  after  drawing  by  J.  M.  Moreau. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  47 

M.  Jules  Claretie,  it  would  seem  as  if  the  Comedie  had  put  the 
stamp  of  its  approval  upon  it.  However,  we  can  resolve  all 
doubts  upon  the  subject  and  vindicate  our  position  as  against  any 
other  bust  having  been  used  than  that  of  Houdon,  by  producing  the 
engraving  by  Gaucher  of  the  drawing  of  the  scene,  made  by  J.  N. 
Moreau,  the  younger.1  Can  any  one  for  a moment  mistake  the  bust 
in  the  foreground?  Besides,  we  have  the  contemporaneous  evi- 
dence of  the  “Memoires  Secrets”  that  this  picture  is  virtually  a 
photograph  of  the  event  just  as  it  transpired.  Bachaumont2  says, 
“M.  Moreau,  Jr.,  has  composed  a picture  representing  the  crown- 
ing of  Voltaire  at  the  Comedie-Frangaise  (‘Couronnement  de  Vol- 
taire sur  le  Theatre-Frangais,  dessin  au  bistre’).  It  has  been  en- 
graved by  Charles  Etienne  Gaucher.  The  scene  is  represented  just 
as  it  was  enacted  in  the  theatre ” We  think  the  merest  tyro  in  art 
will  recognize  the  Houdon  bust,— the  drapery,  the  wig,  the  aged 
look  of  the  face,  all  combine  to  prove  its  identity.  While,  as  we 
have  said,  the  episode,  decided  either  way,  would  have  weighed 
little  in  the  balance  with  Houdon’s  great  name  and  fame,  we  are 
nevertheless  much  gratified  at  having  been  able  to  bury  this  mare’s- 
nest  effectually  for  all  time. 

M.  Guiffrey,  were  he  still  living,  would  join  with  us,  we  think, 
in  admitting  that  once  again,  without  any  effort  on  the  part  of  Hou- 

1 Exposed  at  the  Salon  de  la  Correspondance  in  1783.  Vide  Desnoiresterres,  “Icono- 
graphie  Voltairienne,”  p.  96. 

2 “Memoires  Secrets”  for  May  8,  1778,  Vol.  XI,  p.  256. 


Life  and  Works  of 


48 

don,  the  attempt  to  supplant  him— this  time,  however,  not  by  Caf- 
fieri  himself  but  by  his  biographer— has  proved  abortive. 

We  now  turn  our  attention  to  the  statue,  probably  as  celebrated  a 
piece  of  statuary  as  exists  anywhere,  and  certainly  more  widely 
known  than  any  other  work  by  Houdon. 

“It  would  be  impossible  to  recall  all  the  honors  paid  this  statue 
since  its  first  appearance.  On  the  day  when  Voltaire’s  ashes  were 
transferred  to  the  Pantheon,  July  11,  1791,  Houdon’s  likeness  of 
him  played  a prominent  part  in  the  ceremony,  and  it  is  perfectly 
true  to  say  that  the  day  consecrated  to  the  fame  of  Voltaire  was  also 
consecrated  to  the  genius  of  Houdon.  A copy  of  the  statue  in 
gilded  card-board1  was  carried  in  triumphal  procession  all  over 
Paris.  It  was  crowned  with  flowers  and  covered  with  laurel.  The 
statue  was  reproduced  on  every  hand,  even  being  embroidered  on 
the  ribbons  worn  by  young  girls  in  the  procession.  The  sight  of 
such  a faithful  likeness  of  the  philosopher,  due  to  Houdon,  was 
certainly  not  without  its  influence  in  arousing  the  deep  enthusiasm 
manifested  throughout  the  day.”2 

Voltaire  had  for  a long  period  of  time  obstinately  refused  to  sit 
for  any  statue  intended  for  public  exhibition.  The  first  sculptor 
who  succeeded  in  winning  over  the  distinguished  recluse  to  pose 
for  him  in  his  asylum  at  Ferney  was  a very  obscure  and  mediocre 

1 Catalogued  at  Houdon’s  sale  of  1828,  but  since  lost  sight  of.  “Sur  une  Statuette  de 
Voltaire,”  P.  E.  Mangeant,  1896. 

2 Note  in  Delerot  and  Legrelle,  pp.  162  and  163. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  49 

artist.  He  came  from  Franche-Comte,  and  called  himself  Rosset- 
Dupont.1  It  seems  that  it  was  the  good  humor  of  this  provincial 
sculptor  that  influenced  Voltaire  to  break  his  avowed  purpose. 
He  appeared  pleased,  too,  with  his  bust,  it  being  full  of  life,  accord- 
ing to  contemporary  evidence.  The  memory  of  it  is  all  that  has 
been  handed  down.  The  meed  of  praise  for  this  unknown  work 
would  seem  to  be  justified  solely  by  the  fact  that  Voltaire’s  preju- 
dice had  been  overcome  through  it,  and  that  it  had  opened  the  way 
for  future  yieldings  of  the  same  sort. 

It  came  about  in  1770  that  Mme.  Necker  conceived  the  idea  of 
starting  a subscription  for  a statue  to  Voltaire.  It  was  broached  at 
a dinner-party  given  by  the  Neckers,  and  seventeen  subscribers 
were  at  once  secured;  the  names  of  Diderot,  Baron  Grimm,  Mar- 
montel,  d’Alembert,  Helvetius  and  the  Abbe  Reynal  being  on  the 
list.  It  was  to  be  an  expression  of  admiration  on  the  part  of  literary 
Europe.  Voltaire  himself,  it  is  known,  helped  the  project  as  much 
as  possible  while  apparently  refusing.  “I  have  n’t  the  sort  of  face 
for  a statue,”  he  would  say.  “They  want  to  model  my  face,  but  for 
this  I should  possess  a face ; they  will  hardly  be  able  to  divine  its 
position.  My  eyes  are  sunken  to  a depth  of  three  inches,  my  cheeks 
are  like  so  much  old  parchment  badly  glued  on  some  old  bones 
supported  by  nothing!  The  few  teeth  I ever  had  are  gone,”  etc., 
etc.  Enthusiasm,  however,  in  spite  of  these  objections,  which  were 

1 Desnoiresterres,  in  his  “Iconographie  Voltairienne,”  pp.  86  and  87,  gives  a somewhat 
different  description  of  the  man. 


Life  and  Works  of 


5° 

readily  combated,  became  general  and  found  expression  through 
numerous  subscriptions.1  As  to  the  choice  of  an  artist  for  trans- 
mitting to  posterity  the  features  of  the  Patriarch  of  Ferney,  there 
was  no  hesitation.  Jean  Baptiste  Pigalle,  in  1770,  ranked  as  the  first 
sculptor  of  the  day.  Public  approval  pointed  to  him  with  universal 
voice.  Pigalle  very  naturally  felt  much  pride  in  being  chosen.  “If 
I succeed,  I shall  deem  myself  the  most  fortunate  of  artists,”  were 
his  words.  The  price  to  be  paid  Pigalle  was  left  entirely  with  him- 
self to  fix.  He  wished  to  show  his  appreciation  of  such  generous 
treatment  by  the  modesty  of  his  pretensions;  he  estimated  his  fees 
at  10,000  francs,  not  including  his  traveling  expenses  and  the  cost 
of  the  marble.  So,  in  the  first  days  of  June,  armed  with  a letter 
from  d’Alembert,  he  left  for  Ferney. 

Voltaire  received  him  very  well  and  praised  his  talent.  He  com- 
plained, however,  that  he  was  being  slandered  by  him.  “M.  Pi- 
galle,” was  his  expression,  “goes  about  saying  that  I am  as  fat  as  a 
monk.  The  fact  is,  I forced  myself  to  be  gay  in  his  presence,  and 
puffed  out  my  cheeks  in  order  to  please  him.”  Pigalle,  on  leaving 
Ferney,  carried  with  him  the  model  of  the  head,  which  had  cost 
him  infinite  labor.  Voltaire  was  a most  restless  sitter  at  this  time, 
constantly  changing  his  position,  and  most  of  the  time  engaged  in 
dictating  to  his  private  secretary.  Pigalle  was  in  despair,  until  one 
day  the  conversation  happened  to  turn  on  Aaron’s  “golden  calf,” 

1 The  total  subscription  reached  18,775  francs.  Statement  of  May  10,  1776.  Note  in 
Desnoiresterres,  “Iconographie  Voltairienne.” 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  51 

and  the  length  of  time  such  a statue  would  take  in  the  making.  On 
Pigalle’s  rejoinder  that  he  would  want  six  months,  at  least,  for  such 
a labor,  the  answer,  as  contradicting  the  accepted  version,  gave  so 
much  pleasure  to  Voltaire  that  he  became  quite  pliant  and  docile, 
permitting  Pigalle  finally  to  complete  a satisfactory  model.  The 
story  goes  that  the  latter,  fearing  some  unforeseen  interference  with 
what  he  had  accomplished,  left  surreptitiously  in  the  night-time, 
without  tarrying  any  longer.  It  now  became  a question  of  how  the 
figure  should  be  posed,  and  as  to  the  dress.  Pigalle  had  no  hesita- 
tion in  deciding  to  represent  Voltaire  nude  and  seated.  To  quote 
Desnoiresterres:  “If  Pigalle  had  any  hesitation,  it  was  as  to  the 
choice  of  material : marble  or  bronze.  As  for  the  rest,  he  had  the 
faith  of  an  apostle.” 

Some  thought  that  Diderot’s  influence  had  determined  Pigalle; 
Baron  Grimm,  however,  contended  that  the  sculptor  was  ignorant 
in  the  art  of  simulating  drapery,  and  that  he  represented  Voltaire 
nude  for  fear  of  doing  the  other  badly. 

In  the  early  part  of  September,  1770,  the  public  was  admitted  to 
view  in  Pigalle’s  studio  a sketch  of  the  entire  figure  of  Voltaire, 
holding  a roll  of  parchment  in  one  hand  and  a pen,  or  rather  a 
stylus,  in  the  other.  The  silence  of  the  least  exacting  visitors,  and 
the  disapprobation  expressed  by  other  amateurs  more  critical, 
warned  Pigalle  that  he  was  on  the  wrong  tack.  He  did  not  change 
his  mind,  however,  and  sought  merely  to  do  better  with  his  living 
skeleton  by  trying  another  attitude,  which  in  no  way  carried  with  it 


Life  and  Works  of 


52 

any  change  in  his  original  plan.  The  statue,  which  had  failed  of 
any  modification,  was  executed  after  this  last  model.  Mme. 
Necker,  alarmed,  had  written  Voltaire,  begging  him  to  prevent 
Pigalle  from  carrying  out  his  first  idea;  but  Voltaire  was  of  the 
opinion  that  “M.  Pigalle  must  be  left  the  absolute  master  of  the 
statue.’’  “It  is  a crime,”  Voltaire  goes  on  to  say,  “in  the  fine  arts  to 
put  obstacles  in  the  way  of  genius.  It  is  not  without  meaning  that 
the  latter  is  represented  with  wings;  for  it  must  take  its  flight  as  it 
wills  and  where  it  wills.  ...  I have  never  succeeded  in  the  arts 
that  I have  cultivated  myself  unless  when  listening  to  my  own 
voice.” 

However,  it  was  not  without  intention  that  he  addressed  the  fol- 
lowing well-known  verses  to  Pigalle : 

Cher  Phidias,  votre  statue 
Me  fait  mille  fois  trop  d’honneur. 

Mais,  quand  votre  main  s’evertue 
A sculpter  votre  serviteur, 

Vous  agacez  l’esprit  railleur 
De  certain  peuple  rimailleur, 

Qui  depuis  si  longtemps  me  hue— 

Que  ferez-vous  d’un  pauvre  auteur 
Dont  la  taille  et  le  cou  de  grue, 

Et  la  mine  tres  peu  joufflue 
Feront  rire  les  connaisseurs? 

Sculptez-nous  quelque  beaute  nue.  . . . 

In  spite  of  all  these  hints,  both  in  verse  and  prose,  Pigalle  stuck 
doggedly  to  his  purpose ; he  had  an  old  soldier  brought  to  his  studio 
from  whom  he  modeled  with  a frightful  accuracy  of  detail,  and 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  53 

the  statue,  finished  by  these  means,  was  exhibited  two  years  later, 
toward  the  beginning  of  August,  1772.  At  once  epigrams  began 
to  be  showered  upon  the  philosopher  as  well  as  the  sculptor. 
The  King  of  Sweden,  then  in  Paris,  announced  that  he  would  gladly 
subscribe  “for  a cloak” ! Another  suggested  “that  while  it  was  well 
to  have  a statue  of  Voltaire,  it  was  not  necessary  that  posterity 
should  be  able  to  count  his  ribs”!  The  poets  were  most  prolific, 
and  many  verses  were  penned.  Stress  has  been  laid  purposely  on 
this  unfortunate  statue  by  Pigalle1  in  order  to  give  its  history,  and 
to  show  how  through  its  failure  the  task  finally  fell  to  Houdon, 
giving  him  the  opportunity  to  produce  his  immortal  work. 

The  last  months  of  Voltaire’s  life  are  recorded  in  history;  the 
admiration,  the  enthusiasm,  with  which  he  was  surrounded,  and  the 
whole  of  his  incessant  and  prodigious  triumph;  as  great,  probably, 
as  any  man  has  ever  enjoyed.  Houdon  connected  himself  with  all 
this  resounding  praise  by  preserving  for  contemporaries  and  to 
future  generations  the  last  likeness  of  this  great  man,  and  one  in- 
deed worthy  of  him.  Before  the  death  of  Voltaire,  M.  d’Angevil- 
liers  had  already  succeeded  in  having  it  granted  that  among  the 
statues  to  be  executed  by  the  Academy  of  Sculpture,  after  those  last 
ordered,  should  be  included  a statue  of  Voltaire.  But,  Voltaire 
dead,  what  had  been  yielded  M.  d’Angevilliers  out  of  personal  re- 

1 Its  fate  is  known.  This  monument,  raised  at  the  expense  of  literary  Europe,  was 
first  buried  in  the  Museum  of  President  d’Hormoi.  Later  it  was  placed  in  the  library 
of  the  Institute,  or  rather  at  the  entrance  to  the  library  of  the  Institute,  where  it  is  still 
to  be  found — M.  de  Quincy  saying  that  its  most  appropriate  resting-place  would  be  in 
a “school  of  anatomy.”  The  head  is  not  wanting  in  merit. 


Life  and  Works  of 


54 

gard  and  to  give  the  aged  poet  a pleasant  anticipation  of  post- 
humous fame,  was  not  carried  out.  The  Clerical  Party,  which 
opposed  as  much  as  possible  all  honors  paid  the  memory  of  Vol- 
taire, would  have  risen  in  a body  against  this  official  homage;  and 
it  was  not  considered  sufficiently  important  to  provoke  a profitless 
quarrel  by  pursuing  it.  Consequently  there  was  no  further  ques- 
tion of  an  official  statue,  and  it  was  Houdon’s  statuette,  so  favorably 
commented  on  in  the  Salon  of  1779,  that  led  to  his  being  commis- 
sioned for  the  statue. 

On  the  advice  of  d’Alembert,  Mme.  Denis,  the  niece  and  sole 
legatee  of  the  great  man,  desired  Houdon  to  execute  the  figure  in 
marble,  and  of  life  size,  as  a gift  to  the  French  Academy.  But  be- 
fore the  statue  was  finished,  a foolish  marriage  at  sixty-eight 
years  of  age,  after  thirty-six  years  of  widowhood,  to  a man  younger 
than  herself,1  caused  the  men  of  letters  and  philosophers  to  absent 
themselves  from  Mme.  Denis’s  salon.  In  order  to  revenge  this 
slight,  aggravated  by  certain  sarcasms  pronounced  against  her,  the 
niece  of  Voltaire  conceived  the  idea  of  offering  the  statue,  not  to 
the  Academy,  but  to  the  Comedie,  and  through  the  medium  of 
Gerbier,2  the  celebrated  advocate  and  one  of  the  Company’s  coun- 
selors, arranged  to  have  them  ask  for  it. 

A letter  was  addressed  by  the  Comedians  to  Mme.  Duvivier  un- 
der date  of  September  26,  1780,  in  which  the  signers,  all  mem- 

1 Duvivier.  There  is  a most  amusing  account  of  this  individual  in  the  “Souvenirs”  of 
Mme.  Vigee-Lebrun,  chapter  v,  translated  edition,  1879. 

2 Houdon  did  a bust  of  him. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  55 

bers  of  the  Comedie,  represented  the  appropriateness  of  having 
Voltaire’s  statue  on  the  scene  of  his  many  triumphs,  and  citing  the 
affection  that  had  always  existed  between  himself  and  the  members 
of  the  Company. 

Mme.  Duvivier  wrote  the  same  day,  acknowledging  her  joy 
at  the  flattering  expressions  contained  in  the  letter,  and  the  great 
satisfaction  and  pleasure  it  gave  her  to  accede  to  their  request,  and 
in  the  possession  of  the  Comedie  the  statue  remains  to  this  day.  No 
happier  spot  could  have  been  chosen  for  it  than  the  Theatre-Fran- 
gais,  where  nightly  throngs  for  generations  past  have  been  able  to 
view  and  admire  it. 

Of  the  impression  it  makes  upon  beholders  something  may  be 
gathered  from  those  who  have  recorded  their  impressions:  “It  fig- 
ures the  mortality  of  the  body  and  the  immortality  of  the  soul;  it 
is  deformity  transfigured  by  genius.”  Yet  another:  “It  displays 
the  union  of  intellectual  power  with  physical  weakness.”  Again : 
“In  its  presence  no  other  form  suggests  itself,  and  one  does  not  see 
how  it  could  be  different.”  In  more  descriptive  vein:  “In  this 
marble  he  lives  for  us  as  well  as  for  his  contemporaries;  leaning 
forward  slightly,  he  appears  to  be  listening  to  our  words;  he  looks 
at  us;  he  sees  us;  he  ponders  and  he  smiles.”  And  finally,  to  quote 
from  Claude  Phillips:  “The  lover  of  dramatic  art  at  its  fountain- 
head, so  often  as  he  finds  himself  within  this  temple  of  Tragedy 
and  Comedy,  is  irresistibly  impelled  to  bend  his  steps  toward  the 
foyer,  there  to  commune  with  this  keenly  interrogative  marble  of 


Life  and  Works  of 


56 

Voltaire,  with  the  glance  of  ice  and  of  flame.  And  each  time— so 
magical  is  the  art  of  Houdon— is  conviction  strengthened  that  more 
absolutely  than  even  the  man  himself  or  his  works  does  the  marble 
effigy  express  the  tone  of  the  theatre  which  it  adorns,  the  keenness, 
vivacity  and  polish  of  the  work  that  it  has  done,  its  intellectual 
atmosphere  and  that  of  the  France  of  the  eighteenth  century,  of 
which  Voltaire  was,  if  not  the  most  attractive  or  human,  the  central 
and  dominant  figure.”1 

Finished  in  1781,  the  statue  was  placed  in  the  new  theatre 
in  the  Faubourg  St.-Germain,  when  completed  and  opened  the 
next  year.  In  1794,  during  the  imprisonment  of  the  Comedians 
and  the  closing  of  the  theatre  in  the  Reign  of  Terror,  an  inventory 
was  taken  in  which,  among  other  objects,  the  statue  was  entered  as 
“belonging  to  the  nation.”  In  virtue  of  this  spurious  authority,  in 
the  year  1796,  workmen,  despatched  by  the  ministry,  presented 
themselves  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  off  the  Voltaire  from  the 
vestibule  and  of  putting  it  in  the  National  Institute  recently  organ- 
ized. Saint-Prix,  the  tragedian,  made  answer  that  this  statue  was 
not  national  property  but  belonged  to  the  creditors  of  the  Society, 
then  bankrupt.  Upon  this,  the  Minister  of  the  Interior  authorized 
his  agent  to  open  negotiations  to  ascertain  in  whom  the  owner- 
ship really  lay,  and,  further,  to  acquire  it  for  the  government;  but 
the  Comedians  gave  answer  that  they  could  not,  and  would  not, 
sell  it. 


1 “Art  Journal,”  1906,  p.  225. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  57 

The  Minister  persisting  in  the  belief  that  they  were  merely  the 
depositaries  of  it,  the  citizen  Duvivier  was  obliged  formally  to 
certify  that  the  statue  was  a gift  without  restrictions  or  reservations 
from  his  deceased  wife  to  the  Society  of  Artists  of  the  Theatre- 
Frangais,  and  was  intended  to  remain  “in  their  midst.” 

This  important  testimony  was  addressed  in  the  form  of  a me- 
morial to  the  Minister,  and  won  the  cause;  but,  the  question  of 
ownership  once  determined,  the  Comedians  immediately  offered  to 
cede  the  statue  to  the  Museum  of  the  Louvre,  conditioned  on  the 
payment  of  sums  due  retired  artists  who  had  contributed  to  the  suc- 
cess of  Voltaire’s  plays:  Cloison,  Dumesnil,  Preville,  etc.,  whom 
the  Revolution  had  deprived  of  their  pensions.  This  offer  fortu- 
nately remained  unanswered,  as  the  “seated  Voltaire”  was  found  in 
its  vestibule  when  the  theatre  was  reopened  under  the  name  of  the 
“Odeon,”  in  1797  j1  and  here  it  was  when  the  great  fire  occurred  in 
1799.  The  statue  as  well  as  the  busts  was  saved  by  the  grenadiers 
of  the  Legislative  Assembly,  aided  by  a young  painter,  Germain 
Bevalet. 

A new  Theatre-Frangais  arose  as  it  were  from  the  ashes  of  the 
Odeon.  On  the  31st  of  May,  1799,  the  Comedie-Frangaise,  re- 
constituted, opened  its  doors  in  the  Rue  de  Richelieu;  but  it  was 
not  until  1806,  on  the  1st  of  September,  that  the  statue  was  brought 

1 Not  to  be  confused  with  the  present  Odeon,  Place  de  l’Odeon,  near  the  Palais  du 
Luxembourg,  and  where  the  statue  has  never  been. 


Life  and  Works  of 


5* 

back  across  the  river  and  again  placed  here  in  the  peristyle, 
where  it  remained  in  rear  of  the  ticket-office  until  1864.  At 
this  period  the  construction  of  a new  foyer  for  the  public  allowed 
of  its  being  transferred  to  the  large  room  reserved  for  busts ; so  that, 
after  being  in  the  antechamber  for  eighty-two  years,  Houdon’s 
masterpiece  was  placed  here  on  the  16th  of  March,  1864. 

During  the  siege  of  Paris,  M.  fidouard  Thierry,  Director  of  the 
Theatre-Frangais,  as  a precautionary  measure,  in  September,  1870, 
had  the  statue  incased  in  thin  boards  and  enveloped  in  canvas. 
Strange  to  relate,  government  officials  seemed  to  suspect  this  very 
natural  precaution  as  an  attempt  to  conceal  the  image  of  Voltaire, 
and  so  a formal  notice  was  served  to  “remove  the  coverings  that 
conceal  the  statue  of  Voltaire.”  The  following  day  M.  Thierry 
called  at  the  Hotel  de  Ville,  where  M.  Arago  told  him,  “I  am 
about  having  a resolution  adopted,  by  which,  considering  that  Hou- 
don’s Voltaire  is  the  masterpiece  of  French  sculpture,  it  will  be 
displaced  and  lodged  in  a safe  place.” 

Thierry  asks  him  to  have  it  clearly  expressed  in  the  resolution 
that  the  statue  is  the  property  of  the  Theatre-Frangais,  and  that  it 
should  be  nowhere  received  excepting  as  a deposit. 

The  “Siecle”  having  politely  invited  the  Director  to  quit  the 
Theatre-Frangais  if  Voltaire  and  his  statue  disturbed  him  in  any 
way,  M.  Thierry  wrote  as  follows,  the  letter  appearing  in  the  news- 
paper the  next  day: 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon 


59 


Sir  Director: 

The  Theatre-Frangais  has  had  the  statue  of  Voltaire  encased  in  wood 
and  enveloped  in  canvas,  as  it  also  has  that  of  Mile.  Rachel,  for  the  sole 
purpose  of  protecting  them  both  against  accidents  likely  to  occur  in  a 
hospital.1  I thought  that  this  precautionary  measure  toward  one  of  the 
wonders  of  French  sculpture  which  is  both  our  pride  and  the  treasure  of 
the  Society,  would  require  no  explanation. 

But,  as  I appear  mistaken,  allow  me  to  reassure  your  readers  of  the 
respect  entertained  by  the  Comedie  for  both  Voltaire  and  the  images  of 
him.  There  are  five  still  remaining  on  view:  in  the  tiring-room  of  the 
artists,  in  the  library,  in  the  public  foyer  (being  now  the  large  hospital), 
where  the  bust  of  the  author  of  “Merope”  is  always  uncovered,  and 
where  we  have  veiled  none  of  the  literary  lights  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 

tUI7'  Believe  me>  Sir’  etc-  fio.  Thierry. 


On  the  7th  of  October,  an  individual  from  the  Museum  came  to 
the  Theatre  with  these  words  scribbled  in  pencil  on  the  half  of  an 
envelope:  “I  beg  of  M.  E.  Thierry  to  be  good  enough  to  hand  over 
the  statue  of  Voltaire  to  the  bearer,  who  will  take  it  to  the  Louvre. 
Order  of  the  Minister  of  Public  Instruction.”  Signed,  “F.  Ra- 
vaisson,  Custodian  of  Antiquities.” 

The  messenger  viewed  the  statue,  says  M.  Thierry,  and  came  to 
the  conclusion  that  it  would  be  a considerable  labor,  as  in  the  first 
place  the  grand  staircase  would  have  to  be  staged,  and,  he  adds, 
“profited  by  the  occasion  to  write  M.  Ravaisson  that  the  Theatre- 
Frangais  would  view  with  regret  the  disappearance  of  the  statue, 

1 The  building  was  used  as  a hospital  during  the  siege  of  Paris,  1870-71. 


6 o 


Life  and  Works  of 


even  for  a little  while.”  “On  the  14th  of  January,  1871,  the  men 
from  the  Museum  removed  the  statue  of  Voltaire  from  its  pedestal, 
which  is  already  in  the  corridor  of  the  first  gallery.”  At  this  point 
M.  de  Monval  adds,  as  if  recorded  by  M.  Thierry,  “and  there  is  no 
further  question  in  the  matter  until  the  end  of  the  two  sieges.” 

An  examination  of  the  published  journal1  fails  to  disclose  these 
words,  and  their  effect  is  misleading,  for  the  writers  naturally  sup- 
posed that  it  meant  the  statue  had  been  removed  to  the  Louvre,  that 
having  been  the  “question”  as  to  its  disposal.  This  is  shown  in  a 
note  made  by  M.  Thierry  under  the  date  of  Monday,  January  9, 
1871:  “Ch.  Blanc  came.  We  viewed  the  statue  of  Voltaire  and 
looked  about  together  for  a place  where  we  might  place  it,  to  be 
protected  from  a bombardment  or  secure  against  being  carried  off. 
Ch.  Blanc  will  speak  about  it  to  M.  Villot,  so  that  it  shall  be  moved 
to  the  cellars  of  the  Louvre.”  The  next  day,  Friday,  June  10th, 
there  is  a note:  “Went  to  M.  Tissot’s.  He  does  not  see  that  the 
statue  of  Voltaire  will  be  any  more  secure  in  the  Louvre  than  at  the 
Theatre.  He  urges  us  to  keep  it  by  us.”  Then  follows  the  note  of 
the  14th,  given  above,  stating  that  the  men  from  the  Museum  had 
removed  the  statue  from  its  pedestal.  It  would  appear  that  at  this 
point  any  attempt  at  removal  ended,  and  a further  reading  of  the 
Journal  explains  the  cause;  for,  under  date  of  Sunday,  the  15th,  we 
find,  “This  night,  by  intervals,  terrific  explosions  of  shells;  this 
morning,  incessant  cannonade  from  the  southwest.”  Under  the 

1 “La  Comedie-Frangaise  pendant  les  deux  Sieges,”  1870-71. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  61 

16th,  “Bombardment  all  night,— the  detonations  succeeded  each 
other  rapidly  and  incessantly, — last  night  about  io  o’clock  a bomb 
fell  in  the  Jardin  des  Plantes.”  The  bombardment  had  begun,  and 
any  projects  formed  for  removal  had  immediately  to  be  abandoned, 
and  so  the  statue  remained  at  the  Theatre  during  the  fiery  ordeal; 
and  when  a breathing-space  comes  we  find  under  date  of  March 
nth,  “The  statue  of  Voltaire  is  replaced  on  its  pedestal;  told  Da- 
vesnes,  to  whom  the  chief  workman  addressed  himself,  to  give  him 
30  francs,  the  same  as  paid  him  previously.”  This  refers  evidently 
to  the  same  man  having  been  employed  at  the  time  of  the  statue’s 
removal  from  the  pedestal  in  January.  Finally,  on  the  27th  of 
May,  1871,  when  the  Commune  was  almost  suppressed  but  the 
streets  of  Paris  were  still  disturbed  and  dangerous,  M.  Thierry 
makes  his  way  to  the  Theatre  and  recounts:  “Embraced  L.  Guil- 
lard.  He  showed  me  how  he  had  protected  the  statue  of  Voltaire 
and  a certain  number  of  fine  busts  in  the  foyer.” 

No,  the  statue  of  Voltaire  was  not  removed  during  the  two  sieges, 
1870,  1871.  As  recently  as  1900,  after  a fire  at  the  Comedie,  the 
statue  was  temporarily  sheltered  at  the  Louvre  during  the  rebuild- 
ing of  the  Theatre.  It  has  long  since  been  returned  to  the  Comedie, 
and  there  in  its  appropriate  resting-place,  surrounded  continually 
by  a bank  of  flowers,  we  may  bid  this  wonderful  image,  “the  finest 
iconic  work  which  the  eighteenth  century  has  produced,”1  Re - 
quiescat  in  pace. 

1 Claude  Phillips  in  “London  Art  Journal,”  1893,  P-  78. 


CHAPTER  IV 

1777 

TOMB  OF  MONTGOMERY  BY  CAFFIERI ; OUR  FIRST 
NATIONAL  MONUMENT 

RELAND  gave  birth  to  more  of  the  American  revolu- 
tionary patriots  than  is  commonly  known,  and  the  second 
general  officer  to  fall  in  the  War  of  the  Revolution  was 
of  Irish  birth.  At  Swords,  near  Feltrim,  county  Dublin,  Ireland, 
on  the  2d  of  December,  1736,  was  born  Richard  Montgomery, 
whose  father  was  a member  of  the  Irish  Parliament.1  Commis- 
sioned an  ensign  before  he  was  twenty,  he  accompanied  his  regi- 
ment to  Halifax,  N.  S.,  and  saw  much  severe  service  at  Louisbourg, 
Champlain,  Montreal  and  in  the  West  Indies,  promotion  for  which 
being  denied  him,  he  sold  his  commission  and  settled  on  a farm  at 
King’s  Bridge,  now  a part  of  New  York  City,  where,  soon  after, 
he  took  his  bride,  Janet,  daughter  of  Judge  Robert  R.  Livingston, 
to  whom  he  was  married  on  July  24,  1773.  Later  they  removed  to 
her  home  near  Rhinebeck,  on  the  Hudson,  and  in  May  of  1775  he 
was  sent  as  a delegate  to  the  first  Provincial  Congress  of  New  York. 
The  following  month  he  was  appointed,  by  Congress,  a Brigadier- 

1 “Return  of  the  Names  of  every  Member  returned  to  serve  in  each  Parliament  from 
1696  up  to  1876.”  London,  1879.  Pt.  II,  p.  657. 


62 


Cf  Tantbeau  a etc  mvenkei  execute  en  Marbre  a Parte  par  J J.  Ca/Supy  Sadpteur  du  Jici  en  r — . 


St  trauve  a Parts  ekes  J Jr  S'.  ftdnnt  Graeettr  da  Rat  et  de  ra  Bibltothepu . rue  dee.  ll.it harms  au petit  flolel  dr  day  try  rttmx  aJrets&t  ardiHUKuiP  D X 


CENOTAPH  TO  GENERAL  RICHARD  MONTGOMERY 

Portico  of  St.  Paul’s  Church,  New  York 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  63 

General  in  the  Continental  Army  and  six  months  later  was  commis- 
sioned a Major-General  for  his  brilliant  services  in  Canada. 
Stimulated  by  promotion  to  redoubled  efforts,  he  planned  an  assault 
upon  Quebec,  for  the  last  day  of  the  year,  December  31,  1775,  and, 
in  a driving  snow-storm,  led  the  attack.  At  the  first  fire  of  the 
British  artillery  he  fell,  with  his  aides,  Macpherson  and  Cheese- 
man,  by  his  side. 

Enemies  and  friends  alike  paid  tribute  to  Montgomery’s  valor. 
The  government  of  Quebec  and  the  chief  officers  of  the  garrison 
buried  him  with  the  honors  of  war.  Congress,  at  Philadelphia,  on 
January  22,  1776,  appointed  William  Livingston,  Dr.  Franklin 
and  William  Hooper  a committee  to  consider  a proper  method  of 
paying  a just  tribute  of  gratitude  to  the  memory  of  the  fallen  chief- 
tain. Three  days  later  this  committee  reported:  “It  being  not  only 
a tribute  of  gratitude,  justly  due  to  the  memory  of  those  who  have 
peculiarly  distinguished  themselves  in  the  glorious  cause  of  liberty, 
to  perpetuate  their  names  by  the  most  durable  monuments  erected 
to  their  honour,  but  also  greatly  conducive  to  inspire  posterity  with 
an  emulation  of  their  illustrious  actions, 

“Resolved,  That  to  express  the  veneration  of  the  United  Colonies 
for  their  late  general,  Richard  Montgomery,  and  the  deep  sense 
they  entertain  of  the  many  signal  and  important  services  of  that 
gallant  officer,  who,  after  a series  of  successes,  amidst  the  most  dis- 
couraging difficulties,  fell,  at  length,  in  a gallant  attack  upon 
Quebec,  the  capital  of  Canada;  and  for  transmitting  to  future  ages 


6 4 


Life  and  Works  of 


an  example  truly  worthy  of  imitation,  his  patriotism,  conduct,  bold- 
ness of  enterprize,  insuperable  perseverance  and  contempt  of  dan- 
ger and  death;  a monument  be  procured  from  Paris,  or  any  other 
part  of  France,  with  an  inscription  sacred  to  his  memory  and  ex- 
pressive of  his  amiable  character  and  heroic  achievements;  and  that 
the  Continental  treasurers  be  directed  to  advance  a sum,  not  exceed- 
ing £300  sterling,  to  Dr.  Benjamin  Franklin  (who  is  desired  to  see 
this  resolution  properly  executed)  for  defraying  the  expense 
thereof. 

“That  Dr.  Smith  be  desired  to  prepare  and  deliver  a funeral  ora- 
tion in  honour  of  General  Montgomery  and  of  those  officers  and 
soldiers  who  so  magnanimously  fought  and  fell  with  him  in  main- 
taining the  principles  of  American  liberty.” 

The  oration  was  delivered  before  Congress  on  the  19th  of  Feb- 
ruary, by  the  Rev.  William  Smith,  provost  of  the  University  of 
Pennsylvania,  and  was  published  in  Philadelphia,  London,  Paris 
and  elsewhere;  but  Dr.  Franklin,  to  whom  was  committed  the  se- 
curing the  execution  of  the  monument,  did  not  arrive  in  Paris  until 
a few  days  before  Christmas,  and  it  was  the  following  summer  be- 
fore the  work  was  put  in  hand.  He  selected  to  execute  it  Jean 
Jacques  Caffieri,  whose  employment  to  do  this  work  involved 
Franklin  in  many  annoyances  from  him  when,  some  years  later,  a 
sculptor  had  to  be  selected  to  model  the  statue  of  Washington  for 
the  State  of  Virginia,  which  was  executed  by  Houdon;  Caffieri,  in- 
deed, claiming  the  Washington  commission  as  a right,  contending 


IddDTUISlE  UR(D)lfraiAMf 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  65 

that  he  had  made  Montgomery’s  tomb  for  glory  and  not  for  price, 
as  we  shall  see  in  the  letters  hereafter  given,  to  which  this  chapter 
is  an  introduction.  The  invaluable  manuscript  correspondence  of 
Dr.  Franklin,  in  the  American  Philosophical  Society  at  Phila- 
delphia, yields  a rich  harvest  of  unreaped  material  upon  these  sub- 
jects. The  letters,  of  which  the  following  is  the  first,  are  translated 
from  the  French  originals. 

. Paris,  13  June,  1777. 

dir: 

I have  asked  the  gentleman  (your  son)1  for  the  names,  surnames  and 
titles  of  Genl.  Montgomery,  the  place  and  date  of  his  birth,  or  what 
time  he  spent  in  Boston,  the  several  grades  through  which  he  passed,  the 
most  distinguished  incidents  in  his  career,  how  he  attacked  Quebec,  in 
which  spot  he  was  killed,  and  above  all  the  date  of  his  death,  his  age  and 
his  arms.  This  will  be  very  necessary  to  me  as  I count  on  exhibiting  a 
drawing  of  the  tomb  at  the  next  Salon.  I will  add  a description  of  the 
tomb  and  of  the  person  for  whom  it  is  being  made.  You  will  oblige  me 
very  much  by  sending  me  these  notes  as  promptly  as  it  may  be  possible 
for  you  to  do  so.  I have  the  honor  to  be,  Sir,  your 

Very  humble  and  very  obedient  Servant,  Caffieri 

Caffieri  did  exhibit  his  design  in  the  Salon  of  1777,  along  with 
his  bust  of  Franklin.  The  entry  in  the  catalogue  is:  “Dessin  du 
tombeau  d’un  general  que  l’artiste  execute  en  marbre  de  10  pieds 
de  haut  sur  3 de  large.”  Then  follows  a description:  “From  an 
altarpiece  supported  by  two  brackets  rises  a broken  column,  on 
which  rests  a cinerary  urn.  On  one  side  of  the  column  is  a military 
trophy,  joined  by  a branch  of  cypress ; on  the  other  are  the  emblems 

1 William  Temple  Franklin,  his  grandson. 


66 


Life  and  Works  of 


of  liberty,  with  a palm-branch.  Behind  the  column  rises  a pyra- 
mid. Under  the  altarpiece,  between  the  two  brackets,  is  an  es- 
cutcheon and  a white  marble  tablet  for  the  inscription.” 

It  appears  that  Caffieri  had  promised  to  give,  in  the  description 
of  his  design,  its  destination,  an  omission  which  was  not  through 
forgetfulness,  and  was  not  allowed  to  pass  unnoticed.  The  “Me- 
moires  Secrets”  say: 

It  is  not  known  why  the  artist  has  not  ventured  to  name  the  hero  to 
whom  the  monument  is  to  be  raised.  It  is  a subject  of  general  curiosity, 
and  indignation  is  felt  at  the  offensive  reticence  displayed,  typifying  the 
weakness  of  government,  which  doubtless  forbade  it  for  fear  of  offend- 
ing the  English. 

And  in  a foot-note  add  that  “the  tomb  was  intended  for  General 
Montgomery,  killed  before  Quebec,  the  31st  of  December,  1775.” 

A year  later  the  cenotaph  was  finished  and  shipped  to  America. 
This  we  know  from  a somewhat  amusing  letter  from  Franklin  to 
James  Hutton  of  London,  who  had  asked  for  a passport  for  a vessel 
sent  by  the  Moravians  of  England  to  their  missionaries  on  the  coast 
of  Labrador.  It  is  dated  “Passy,  23  June,  1778.  My  dear  old 
friend  has  here  the  paper  he  desired.  We  have  had  a marble  monu- 
ment made  at  Paris  for  the  brave  General  Montgomery,  which  is 
gone  to  America.  If  it  should  fall  into  the  hands  of  any  of  your 
cruisers,  I expect  you  will  exert  yourself  to  get  it  restored  to  us, 
because  I know  the  generosity  of  your  temper,  which  likes  to  do 
handsome  things  as  well  as  to  make  returns.  You  see,  we  are  un- 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  67 

willing  to  rob  the  hospital;  we  hope  your  people  will  be  found  as 
averse  to  pillaging  the  dead  ” Owing  to  the  chief  ports  of  entry 
being  in  the  hands  of  the  British,  this  marble  was  shipped  to  the 
care  of  Joseph  Hewes,  at  Edenton,  North  Carolina;  and  Franklin, 
not  being  advised  of  its  arrival,  wrote  to  John  Jay,  President  of 
Congress,  from  “Passy,  October  4,  1779.  It  is  two  years,  I believe, 
since  I sent  the  monument  of  General  Montgomery.  I have  heard 
that  the  vessel  arrived  in  North  Carolina,  but  nothing  more.  I 
should  be  glad  to  know  of  its  coming  to  hand  and  whether  it  was 
approved.  Here  it  was  admired  for  the  goodness  and  beauty  of 
the  marble  and  the  simplicity  of  the  design.  The  sculptor  has  had 
an  engraving  made  of  it,  of  which  I enclose  a copy.  It  was  con- 
trived to  be  affixed  to  the  wall  within  some  church  or  in  the  great 
room  where  the  Congress  met.  Directions  for  putting  it  up  went 
with  it.  All  the  parts  were  well  packed  in  strong  cases.”  The 
pressure  of  public  affairs  of  greater  moment  evidently  kept  Jay 
from  advising  Franklin  in  answer  to  his  inquiry;  for  three  years 
later  we  find  Franklin  writing  to  the  same  effect  to  Robert  R.  Liv- 
ingston, the  Secretary  of  Foreign  Affairs. 

Passy,  12  August,  1782. 

This  [proposed  monument  to  Yorktown]  puts  me  in  mind  of  a monu- 
ment I got  made  here  and  sent  to  America  by  order  of  Congress  five 
years  since.  I have  heard  of  its  arrival  and  nothing  more.  It  was  ad- 
mired here  for  its  elegant  antique  simplicity  of  design  and  the  various 
beautiful  marbles  used  in  its  composition.  It  was  intended  to  be  fixed 
against  a wall  in  the  State  House  of  Philadelphia.  I know  not  why  it  has 


68 


Life  and  Works  of 


been  so  long  neglected;  it  would,  methinks,  be  well  to  inquire  after  it  and 
get  it  put  up  somewhere.  Directions  for  fixing  it  were  sent  with  it.  I en- 
close a print  of  it.  The  inscription  on  the  engraving  is  not  on  the  monu- 
ment ; it  was  merely  the  fancy  of  the  engraver.  There  is  a white  plate  of 
marble  left  smooth  to  receive  such  inscription  as  the  Congress  should 
think  proper. 

Another  two  years  were  allowed  to  roll  by  before  any  action  was 
taken  in  regard  to  erecting  the  monument,  when  in  Congress,  on 
Tuesday,  June  i,  1784,  on  motion  of  Mr.  De  Witt,  seconded  by 
Mr.  Gerry,  it  was  resolved: 

“Whereas,  On  the  25th  day  of  January,  1776,  Congress  did  re- 
solve that  a monument  be  procured  at  Paris  or  any  other  place  in 
France,  with  an  inscription  sacred  to  the  memory  of  General  Mont- 
gomery; which  in  consequence  thereof  was  procured  and  sent  to 
the  care  of  Mr.  Hewes,  in  North  Carolina,  and  is  now  supposed  to 
be  in  the  care  of  his  executors : 

“Resolved,  That  the  executors  of  Joseph  Hewes,  Esq.,  or  the 
person  in  whose  hands  the  monument  is,  be  requested  to  deliver  the 
same  to  the  order  of  the  Superintendent  of  Finance,  to  be  trans- 
ported to  the  city  of  New  York,  to  be  erected  in  such  part  of  the 
State  of  New  York  as  the  Legislature  thereof  may  judge  proper, 
and  that  the  expense  accruing  thereon  be  paid  by  the  United  States 
of  America.” 

This  action  of  Congress  leaves  the  impression  that  the  monument 
was  rather  in  the  nature  of  a white  elephant,  which  Congress  was 
endeavoring  to  shove  off  on  some  other  body,  an  impression  that  is 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  69 

not  removed  by  the  action  of  the  Senate  and  Assembly  of  the  State 
of  New  York  on  November  26,  1784,  when  it  was  resolved  “that 
the  Monument  by  the  United  States,  in  Congress,  ordered  to  be 
erected  to  the  memory  of  Major  General  Montgomerie,  be  erected 
in  the  city  of  New  York,  at  such  particular  place  as  the  Mayor, 
Aldermen  and  Commonalty  of  the  said  city,  in  Common  Council 
convened,  shall  appoint.” 

None  of  these  actions  could  have  been  communicated  to  Frank- 
lin, which,  to  say  the  least,  does  not  speak  well  for  the  amenities  of 
our  forefathers,  when  Franklin  had  had  the  entire  burden  and  re- 
sponsibility of  procuring  the  monument,  and  showed  his  great  in- 
terest in  it  by  his  constant  inquiries,  for  within  a year  after  his 
return  to  America  we  find  him  writing  again  to  Jay  on  the  subject. 
He  says : 

Philadelphia,  August  24,  1786. 

The  monument  of  General  Montgomery— May  I ask  what  is  become 
of  it?  It  has  formerly  been  said  that  republicks  are  naturally  ungrate- 
ful. The  immediate  resolution  of  Congress  for  erecting  that  monument 
contradicts  that  opinion.  But  the  letting  the  monument  lie  eight  years 
unpack’d,  if  true,  seems  rather  a Confirmation  of  it. 

Whether  this  last  communication  stirred  the  matter  up  for  final 
settlement,  we  do  not  know,  but  on  the  3d  of  April,  1787,  in  the 
Common  Council  of  New  York,  the  Mayor  laid  before  the  Board 
the  concurrent  resolution  of  the  Legislature  of  two  years  and  a half 
before,  and  the  Board  “proceeded  to  the  consideration  of  a place  for 
erecting  the  Monument,  and  the  front  of  St.  Paul’s  Church  in  this 


Life  and  Works  of 


70 

city  was  unanimously  agreed  to  be  the  most  proper  place.  And  there- 
upon it  was  ordered  that  a Committee  be  appointed  to  consult  with 
the  Churchwardens  and  Vestrymen  of  the  Episcopal  Church  on  the 
subject,  and  if  approved  of  by  them,  that  the  Committee  take  order 
and  direct  the  said  Monument  to  be  properly  erected  accordingly.” 

Thus  a place  for  the  monument  to  Montgomery  was  finally  ar- 
ranged, but  it  yet  required  time  to  complete  its  erection,  and  it  was 
not  until  1789  that  this  monument,  ordered  by  Congress  thirteen 
years  before  and  delivered  by  the  sculptor  to  Franklin  and  by  him 
shipped  to  America  within  a year  of  the  time  that  the  order  was 
given,  was  put  in  place  against  the  wall  under  the  large  portico  of 
the  eastern  end  of  St.  Paul’s  Church,  where  it  remains  to-day  and 
can  be  seen  readily  by  any  one  passing  up  or  down  Broadway— the 
oldest  public  monument  in  the  city  of  New  York. 

It  is  signed,  “Invenit  et  sculpsit  J J Caffieri,  Sculptor,  Regius 
Anno  Domini  cbbcclxxvii.”  The  inscription  is  an  abbreviation  of 
the  minute  of  Congress  which  came  from  the  pen  of  Franklin. 

This  Monument  is  erected  by  order  of  Congress 
25th  Janry  1776  to  transmit  to  posterity  a grateful  remem- 
brance of  the  patriotism,  conduct,  enterprize  & perseverance 
of  Major  General  Richard  Montgomery 
Who  after  a series  of  successes  amidst  the  most  discou- 
raging difficulties  Fell  in  the  attack  on 
Quebec  31st  Decr  1775  Aged  37  years1 

1 Montgomery’s  age  as  given  on  the  monument  was  thought  at  the  time  to  be  correct, 
but  later  investigation  has  shown  that  he  was  thirty-nine  years  old  at  the  time  of  his 
death. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  7i 

More  than  two  score  years  after  he  fell,  Montgomery’s  remains 
were  disinterred  and  brought  to  New  York,  where  on  July  8,  1 8 1 8, 
they  were  deposited  beneath  this  monument,  the  history  of  which 
has  not  before  been  told,  and  which  it  is  of  great  importance  should 
be  told  for  the  “truth  of  history,”  in  view  of  the  remarkable  state- 
ment made  by  the  late  Dr.  Morgan  Dix,  in  his  “History  of  the 
Parish  of  Trinity  Church,  New  York”  (Part  II,  page  141)  : “To 
begin  with,  the  monument  to  General  Montgomery,  in  the  portico 
of  St.  Paul’s  Chapel,  in  front  of  the  great  window—  that  monument 
was  ordered  by  the  Vestry  and  made  in  England.”  Comment  is 
unnecessary,  but  not  upon  the  terrible  dilapidation  into  which  this 
wealthy  corporation  has  permitted  our  first  national  monument  to 
fall.  It  is  not  only  seriously  fractured  in  parts,  but  it  is  generally 
so  uncared  for  that  no  one  would  ever  dream  that  it  was  made  of 
varicolored  marbles  or,  knowing  it,  could  ever  detect  it. 

That  Caffieri  was  not  aware  of  the  neglect  his  monument  had 
received  when  he  importuned  Franklin  to  give  him  the  Washing- 
ton statue  to  model,  is  shown  by  his  memorial,  in  1786,  soliciting 
“des  Lettres  de  Noblesse  et  le  Cordon  de  Saint  Michel,”  wherein 
he  sets  forth  among  his  most  important  works : 

“4.  Un  grand  tombeau  erige  a la  gloire  de  Richard  de  Mont- 
gomery, major-general  des  Americaine,  place  dans  la  grande  salle 
ou  se  tiennent  les  fitats-generaux  a Philadelphie  en  1777.” 

The  print  of  the  monument,  mentioned  by  Franklin  in  his  letters 
to  J ay  and  to  Livingston,  was  engraved  by  Augustin  de  St.  Aubin 


72  Jean  Antoine  Houdon 

and  published  in  1779,  and  must  have  been  copied  from  the  exhib- 
ited design,  which  the  sculptor  departed  from  in  executing  the 
marble,  and  not  from  the  finished  monument,  as  the  two  vary  in 
many  details,  besides  being  reversed,  as  is  often  the  case  in  prints 
prior  to  the  last  century. 


CHAPTER  V 

1778 

BUSTS  OF  BENJAMIN  FRANKLIN— CAFFIERI’S  JEALOUSY  OF  HOUDON-LET- 
TERS  FROM  CAFFIERI  TO  FRANKLIN- CAFFI ERI’S  BUST  OF  FRANKLIN 
WRONGFULLY  ATTRIBUTED  TO  CERACCHI— THE  BUSTS  OF  FRANKLIN 
BY  HOUDON  AND  BY  CAFFIERI  COMPARED 

H HE  subject  of  this  chapter  is  of  the  first  importance  and 
interest,  owing  to  the  errors  and  mistakes  that  have  hung 
around  it  for  well-nigh  a century.  Houdon’s  preemi- 
nence as  an  artist  and  distinction  as  a man  have  made  it  customary 
to  attach  his  name  to  almost  every  bust  that  we  have  of  the  “Father 
of  all  the  Yankees,”  as  Carlyle  dubbed  Franklin.  And  it  is  to  point 
out  clearly  and  definitively  which  is  the  Houdon  type  of  Franklin 
bust  and  which  the  type  called  the  Ceracchi  (which,  however,  we 
shall  show  was  not  by  Ceracchi,  but  by  Caffieri,  a fellow-country- 
man and  contemporary  of  Houdon),  that  we  shall  bend  our 
energies. 

To  properly  survey  the  field  and  present  the  entire  subject  intelli- 
gently, it  becomes  necessary  to  anticipate  somewhat  Franklin’s 
arrival  in  France,  toward  the  close  of  1776.  Nine  months  before 

his  appointment  to  represent  the  Congress  at  the  court  of  Versailles, 

73 


Life  and  Works  of 


74 

that  body,  as  we  have  seen,  had  requested  him  to  carry  out  its  reso- 
lution providing  for  a monument  to  the  memory  of  General  Rich- 
ard Montgomery.  Thus  coming  events  cast  their  light  before. 
Franklin,  at  this  time,  was  a resident  of  Philadelphia,  and  while 
he  was  a delegate  to  Congress  and  chairman  of  the  Secret  Commit- 
tee of  Correspondence,  which  was  in  fact  a committee  on  foreign 
relations,  his  name  had  not  even  been  mentioned  for  the  mission 
that  was  to  add  such  lustre  to  his  declining  years.  Indeed,  INDE- 
PENDENCE had  hardly  then  been  thought  of,  except  perhaps  by  Sam 
Adams  and  a few  of  his  radical  followers.  Franklin,  too,  had 
passed  the  allotted  milestone  of  life  and  but  recently  returned  from 
an  eleven  years’  residence  in  England,  which  might  have  been  con- 
sidered an  immunity  from  further  foreign  service.  But  France 
was  already  showing  her  leaning  toward  the  revolted  colonies,  and 
Franklin  was  the  Frenchman’s  American  then,  as  he  is  to-day. 
Therefore  he,  and  only  he,  was  the  man,  in  the  mind’s  eye,  to  go  to 
France  when  the  proper  moment  should  arrive;  and  thus  he  was 
intrusted,  ahead  of  time,  to  select,  when  he  should  get  there,  the 
sculptor  to  make  the  first  commemorative  monument  ordered  by 
the  Continental  Congress. 

Franklin  arrived  in  Paris  on  December  21,  1776, 1 and  on  the 

1 Mme.  du  Deffand  wrote  to  Horace  Walpole  from  Paris,  December  22,  1776,  “Dr. 
Franklin  arrived  in  town  yesterday  at  two  o’clock  in  the  afternoon.”  Lettres  de  la 
Marquise  du  Deffand  a Horace  Walpole,  Paris,  1812,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  361,  n.  See  also 
“Correspondance  Secrete,”  January  1,  1777,  Vol.  IV,  p.  70:  “The  celebrated  Franklin 
arrived  at  Paris  on  the  21st  of  December  and  the  eyes  of  the  world  are  fixed  on  his 
slightest  movement.” 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  75 

1 2th  of  the  next  month  the  police  entered  this  description  of  him 
on  their  record: 

“Dr.  Franklin  lately  arrived  in  this  country.  This  Quaker  wears 
the  full  costume  of  his  sect.  He  has  an  agreeable  physiognomy; 
spectacles  always  on  his  eyes;  but  little  hair;  a fur  cap  is  always  on 
his  head.  He  wears  no  powder ; tidy  in  his  dress ; very  white  linen ; 
a walking-stick  his  only  defence.” 

A month  later,  Franklin  confirms  this  official  description  in  a 
letter  to  Mrs.  Emma  Thompson  at  Lille.1  He  writes: 

“I  know  you  wish  you  could  see  me,  but,  as  you  can’t,  I will  de- 
scribe myself  to  you.  Figure  me  in  your  mind  as  jolly  as  formerly, 
and  as  strong  and  hearty,  only  a few  years  older,  very  plainly 
dressed,  wearing  my  thin  gray  straight  hair,  that  peeps  out  under 
my  only  Coiffure , a fine  fur  cap,  which  comes  down  my  Forehead 
almost  to  my  spectacles.” 

This  was  the  odd  figure  that  appeared  “among  the  powdered 
heads  of  Paris,”  as  he  told  Mrs.  Hewson2  the  same  day  that  he  gave 
the  police  the  impression  that  he  was  a Quaker  in  the  plain  garb  of 
his  sect.  He  was  not  at  all  averse  that  his  unpolished  appearance 
should,  as  it  doubtless  did,  intensify  the  character  the  French  peo- 
ple had  already  formed  of  him.  Almost  immediately,  with  a 
mushroom-like  growth,  his  portrait  was  seen  everywhere,  in  paint- 
ing, engraving  and  sculpture,  in  miniature,  medallion  and  statuette, 


1 Smyth’s  Franklin,  Vol.  VII,  p.  26. 

2 Smyth’s  Franklin,  Vol.  VII,  p.  10. 


7^ 


Life  and  Works  of 


numbering  hundreds.  They  were  set  in  rings,  watches,  snuff-boxes, 
bracelets,  looking-glasses,  clocks,  and  even  in  articles  of  household 
use,  until  it  was  said  by  a gossip  of  the  day  that  his  likeness  was  “to 
be  found  at  the  hearth  of  the  lowly  and  in  the  boudoir  of  the  beauti- 
ful.” Before  he  was  a year  in  Paris,  Cochin  had  drawn  him  in  his 
fur  cap,  and  St.  Aubin  had  engraved  it;1  Greuze  had  painted 
his  little-known  but  extremely  fine  pastel  portrait  of  him ; 2 Nini  had 
modeled  no  less  than  five  different  medallions  for  cheap  reproduc- 
tion ; and  Caffieri  had  made  a bust  of  him  that  was  exhibited  in  the 
Salon  of  1777.  This  last  item  is  pregnant  with  importance  in  our 
consideration  of  the  present  subject;  for  so  completely  had  it  been 
buried  and  forgotten  that  it  was  virtually  unknown  until  disinterred 
by  the  writer  a few  years  ago  in  a rather  remarkable  manner. 

The  two  busts  of  Franklin  familiar  in  this  country  have  been 
known  for  a century  interchangeably  as  the  Ceracchi  bust  and  the 
Houdon  bust,  but  few  persons  entertaining  any  idea  of  distinguish- 
ing or  individualizing  them— differentiating  one  from  the  other; 


1 The  following  verses,  written  for  St.  Aubin’s  engraving  of  Cochin’s  portrait  of 
Franklin,  were  suppressed  by  the  censor  as  being  blasphemous: 

C’est  l’honneur  et  l’appui  du  nouvel  hemisphere, 

Les  flots  de  l’Ocean  s’abaissent  a sa  voix; 

II  reprime  ou  dirige  a son  gre  le  tonnerre, 

Qui  desarmee  les  Dieux  peut-il  craindres  les  Rois. 

Grimm-Diderot  Correspondance,  October,  1777,  Vol.  XII,  p.  3. 

2 This  picture,  and  the  only  portrait  of  Franklin  by  Greuze,  although  many  are 
claimed  to  be  by  him,  belonged  to  Prince  Demidoff,  and  was  purchased  at  the  great 
San  Donato  sale,  in  March,  1870,  by  its  present  owner,  Mrs.  Thomas  Lindall  Winthrop 
of  Boston,  Massachusetts. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  77 

so  that  one  may  find  in  public  galleries  and  in  private  collections 
both  busts  attributed,  interchangeably,  to  Houdon  and  to  Ceracchi. 

A decade  ago,  when  the  writer  was  preparing  his  monograph  on 
“The  Life  Portraits  of  Franklin,”1  he  came  across  a letter  from 
Franklin  “to  a discontented  artist  whose  name  is  not  preserved.”2 
This  letter  is  in  the  Stevens  collection  of  Franklin  manuscripts  in 
the  Library  of  Congress  at  Washington,  where  are  an  undated  and 
unsigned  draft  in  English,  in  Franklin’s  own  hand,  and  a dated 
translation  into  French  by  an  amanuensis,  signed  by  Franklin.  As 
this  letter  has  not  been  accurately  printed  in  either  of  the  publica- 
tions where  it  appears,3  we  give  Franklin’s  original  draft  and  also 
the  French  translation.  The  latter  has  a pen  line  drawn  diagonally 
across  the  second  paragraph,  as  it  is  here  printed,  which  would  in- 
dicate that  this  paragraph  was  omitted  from  the  letter  actually  sent 
and  no  notice  whatever  taken  of  the  correspondent’s  complaints,— 
a sober,  wise  second  thought. 


(Draft.) 

Sir: 

I receiv’d  the  two  obliging  Lettres  you  have  lately  written  to  me. 
Please  to  deliver  one  of  the  Busts  to  M.  le  Roy,  of  the  Academy  of 
Sciences,  and  keep  the  other  till  call’d  for  by  M.  Carmichael,  Charge 
des  Affaires  des  Ltats  Unis  at  Madrid.  Send  me  a Bill  of  the  Expense 
with  a Receipt  and  it  shall  be  immediately  paid.  Your  Complaints  of 
Injustice,  of  being  supplanted,  etc.,  seem  to  have  been  founded  on  a 

1 McClure’s  Magazine  for  January,  1897. 

2 Hale’s  Franklin  in  France,  Vol.  II,  p.  372. 

3 Hale’s  Franklin  in  France,  Vol.  II,  p.  372,  and  Smyth’s  Franklin,  Vol.  IX,  p.  346. 


78 


Life  and  Works  of 


mistake.  You  have  not  considered  the  13  States  of  America  as  so  many 
distinct  Governments,  each  of  which  has  a Right  to  employ  what  Artist 
it  thinks  proper,  and  is  under  no  kind  of  Obligation  to  employ  one  who 
has  been  employ’d  before,  either  by  the  Congress  or  by  particular  States. 
The  State  of  Virginia,  therefore,  in  chusing  another,  tho’  perhaps  they 
may  not  have  made  a better  choice,  have  certainly  done  you  no  injustice. 
With  great  esteem  I have  the  honour  to  be. 

(French  Translation.) 

Passy,  le  20  Juin,  1785. 

J’ai  regu,  Monsieur,  les  2 Lettres  obligeantes  que  vous  m’avez  fait 
l’honneur  de  m’ecrire  dernierement.  Remettez,  Je  vous  prie,  un  des 
Bustes  a Mr.  le  Roy  de  L’Academie  des  Sciences,  et  gardez  l’autre  jusqu’a 
ce  que  M.  Carmichael,  Charge  des  Affaires  des  Etats  Unis  a Madrid,  le 
demande.  Aussitot  que  vous  m’aurez  envoye  votre  memoire  quittance 
il  vous  sera  paye  immediatement. 

V^s^Plaintes  sur  l’lnjustice  d’avoir  ete  supplante  &c.  semblent  fon- 
dees  sur  ui^m^lentendu.  Vous  n’avez  pas  considere  que  les  13  Etats  Unis 
de  l’Amerique  sfrf^tautant  Gouvernements  distincts,  qui  ont  chacun  le 
Droit  d’employer  tel  AHi^te  qu’ils  jugent  a propos,  et  ne  sont  aucunement 
obliges  d’en  employer  un  qm^a^ete  employe  avant,  soit  par  le  Congres 
ou  par  des  fitats  particuliers.  L’Efctfc^de  Virginie  par  consequence  nous 
vous  a certainement  fait  aucun  Injustice^er^prenant  un  autre  Artiste, 
quoi  qu’il  n’ait  peut-etre  pas  fait  un  meilleur  chofr^ 

J’ai  l’honneur  d’etre  avec  beaucoup  d’Estime,  Monsieur,  votre  tres 
humble  et  tres  obeissant  Serviteur, 

B.  Franklin. 

These  two  pieces  are  calendared1  with  the  name  of  “[JEAN 
ANTOINE  HOUDON?],”  in  brackets  and  with  a query-mark,  as 

1 List  of  the  Benjamin  Franklin  Papers  in  the  Library  of  Congress,  p.  161. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  79 

a putative  addressee.  This  was  the  suggestion  of  Stevens.  The 
date  of  the  letter  and  its  comment  upon  “your  complaints  of  Injus- 
tice” showed  me  clearly  that  it  could  not  have  been  addressed  to 
Houdon,  as  at  that  very  date  Houdon  was  under  contract  to  accom- 
pany Franklin  to  America  to  model  a statue  of  Washington,  so  that 
he  had  no  possible  cause  for  complaint,  while  the  complaint  itself 
was  plainly  directed  against  him  on  this  very  ground.  As  the  only 
other  contemporary  bust  of  Franklin  known  was  the  one  attributed 
to  Ceracchi,  he  was  the  only  other  sculptor  with  whom  Franklin 
was  thought  to  have  had  any  affiliations,  and  this  letter  to  an  un- 
known sculptor  was  therefore  assumed  to  have  been  written  to 
Ceracchi. 

Not  long  after  the  publication  of  my  monograph,  in  examining 
the  very  important  Franklin  manuscript  correspondence  in  the 
American  Philosophical  Society  at  Philadelphia,  a new  Richmond 
appeared  upon  the  field.  I found  the  letter  dated  “Paris,  June  13, 
1777”  signed  “Caffieri,”  given  in  the  preceding  chapter.  Thus 
Franklin’s  choice  of  a sculptor  to  make  the  Montgomery  memorial 
confided  to  him  by  Congress  had  fallen,  this  letter  revealed,  upon 
Jean  Jacques  Caffieri,  a Parisian  sculptor  of  Italian  descent,  who 
was  the  senior  of  Houdon  by  sixteen  years.  The  design  for  the 
memorial  was  exhibited  at  the  Salon  of  1777,  along  with  a bust  of 
Franklin.  This  seemed  to  be  a new  bust  of  Franklin,  from  the 
hand  of  a sculptor  hitherto  unknown  in  this  connection. 

Further  search  discovered  numerous  letters  from  Caffieri  to  Dr. 


8o 


Life  and  Works  of 


Franklin  and  to  his  grandson  and  secretary,  William  Temple 
Franklin.  On  May  3,  1780,  he  invites  Franklin  to  his  studio  to  see 
his  “statue  in  marble  of  St.  Satyre,  destined  to  be  placed  in  one  of 
the  chapels  of  the  Royal  Church  of  the  Invalides.”  On  June  4 he 
writes : 

I learn  by  the  public  papers  that  the  Congress  at  Philadelphia,  in 
acknowledgment  of  the  services  rendered  by  the  late  Count  Pulaski, 
Brigadier  General,  have  resolved  that  a public  monument  shall  be  raised 
to  the  memory  of  that  officer  and  that  its  execution  shall  be  confided  to  a 
French  artist.  Owing  to  that  article  I take  the  liberty  to  write  you  for 
the  purpose  of  reminding  you  that  you  had  the  goodness  to  promise  to 
confide  to  me  the  execution  of  all  the  Tombs  that  the  United  States  of 
America  should  have  made  in  the  future.  As  some  time  has  elapsed 
since  there  has  been  a question  of  this  tomb,  perhaps  I have  a com- 
petitor. However,  I am  indifferent  to  this;  I dare  hope  to  have  the 
preference  to  obtain  the  monument  as  I have  in  you,  Sir,  full  confidence. 

Two  years  later— April  1,  1782— he  writes: 

Sickness  and  the  bad  weather  have  prevented  me  from  having  the 
honour  of  calling  to  assure  you  of  my  humble  civilities  and  to  pray  you 
to  remember  me  on  the  occasion  when  you  may  be  charged  by  the  Amer- 
ican republic  with  some  piece  of  sculpture,  whether  Tomb  or  Statue,  in 
marble  or  in  bronze.  You  have  had  the  goodness  to  promise  me  not  to 
forget  me  when  the  occasion  presents  itself.  It  is  not  to  be  doubted  but 
that  the  republic  will  desire  to  testify  by  monuments  the  happy  services 
of  the  heroes  who  live,  as  of  the  heroes  who  sacrificed  themselves  for 
their  country.  My  talents  you  know.  I dare  hope  that  you  will  prefer 
me  to  any  propositions  another  sculptor  might  make  you. 

And  on  May  3,  1782,  he  presents  Franklin  with  “the  statue  of 
Pierre  Corneille,  which  is  a faithful  copy  of  the  one  I have  exe- 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  81 

cuted  in  marble  for  the  King.”  The  next  year  is  a banner  year  of 
importuning  letters,  Caffieri  having  written  not  less  than  six,  each 
one  begging  to  be  employed  on  any  sculptural  work  to  be  ordered 
by  the  United  States.  On  January  22,  1783,  he  writes  Dr.  Frank- 
lin : 

I beg  of  you  to  aid  in  having  my  talents  employed  and  to  be  per- 
suaded that  I shall  apply  all  my  care  and  zeal  to  prove  myself  worthy  of 
your  choice. 

And  the  same  day,  to  the  grandson : 

Peace  between  England  and  America  being  the  epoch  the  most  re- 
markable of  this  century,  I venture  to  believe  that  your  fellow-country- 
men will  hasten  to  render  your  illustrious  grandfather,  M.  Franklin,  the 
homage  they  owe  to  his  sagacity,  and  to  the  success  attending  his  nego- 
tiations. Perhaps  the  Americans  residing  in  Paris  may  unite  to  send  to 
Philadelphia  the  statue  of  this  great  man,  in  marble  or  in  bronze,  and  I 
should  take  pride  if  you  would  contribute  toward  having  me  honored  by 
their  choice.  Finally,  if  in  one  way  or  another  it  is  desired  to  transmit 
the  great  event  to  posterity,  I claim  your  good  offices  for  my  talents, 
which  are  known  to  you,  promising  you  every  endeavor  to  merit  the 
suffrage  of  your  country  and  of  my  own  on  so  happy  an  occasion. 

On  March  25  of  this  year  he  wrote : 

I have  just  learned  indirectly  that  the  United  States  of  America  are 
intending  to  raise  a statue  to  the  Glory  of  the  King.  If  the  thing  be  true, 
it  would  be  very  flattering  for  me  to  be  charged  with  the  execution  of  the 
monument.  I beg  of  you,  Sir,  at  this  opportunity  and  at  all  others  to  be 
good  enough  to  recall  me  to  your  mind  and  to  be  persuaded  of  my  zeal 
and  gratitude. 

The  rumor,  mentioned  in  this  letter  as  being  afloat  in  Paris,  of 
the  intention  of  the  American  Congress  to  erect  a monument  to  his 


82 


Life  and  Works  of 


Most  Christian  Majesty  seems  to  have  been  wide-spread  over  there, 
although,  as  far  as  I can  discover,  without  the  least  foundation  over 
here.  The  Journals  of  Congress  contain  not  a word  regarding  it, 
and  this  reference  in  the  letter  of  Caffieri  was  the  first  mention  I 
ever  saw  of  it.  Yet  Franklin  seems  to  have  been  openly  cognizant 
of  it  and  by  his  action  to  have  given  credit  to  it.  Bachaumont  says  i1 
“There  is  a proposition  of  erecting  to  Louis  XVI,  in  the  square 
in  Philadelphia  opposite  to  the  hall  of  Congress,  a statue  in  bronze 
with  this  inscription: 

Post  Deum 

Deligenda  et  Servanda  est  Libertas, 

Maximis  empta  laboribus; 

Humanique  sanguinis  flumine  irrigata 
Per  imminentia  belli  pericula; 

Juvante 

Optimo  Galliarum  Principe,  Rege 
Ludovico  XVI 

Hanc  statuam  principe  augustissime 
Consecravit 

Et  aeternam,  pretiosam  que  beneficii 
Memoriam 

Grata  reipublicae  veneratio 
Ultimis  tradit  nepotibus 

And  Metra  writes  the  same  day  as  Bachaumont:2 

The  Museum  of  Paris  held  a public  meeting  on  the  sixth  of  this 
month  in  honor  of  Peace,  over  which  M.  de  Calhava  presided  and  Mr. 

1 “Memoires  Secrets,”  March  19,  1783,  Vol.  XXII,  p.  178.  See  also  “Correspon- 
dance  Secrete,”  July  28,  1783,  Vol.  XV,  p.  19. 

2 “Correspondance  Secrete,”  March  19,  1783,  Vol.  XIV,  p.  190. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  83 

Franklin  assisted.  . . . After  the  concert  Mr.  Franklin  was  conducted 
into  the  room  prepared  for  the  supper  to  the  guests.  They  drank  his 
health  and  to  the  glory  of  the  United  States.  Amid  the  noise  of  the 
instruments  and  the  plaudits  of  the  assemblage,  a palm  branch  was 
placed  in  his  hand  and  a crown  upon  his  head.  He  spoke  these  words, 
“I  am  very  sensible  at  these  evidences  of  affection  that  I have  received. 
I wish  all  of  you  much  prosperity  and  an  everlasting  union  between  the 
two  countries.”  He  then  retired.  I have  forgotten  to  say  to  you  that, 
speaking  of  the  statue  that  the  Congress  has  caused  to  he  elevated  to 
Louis  XVI,  the  Liberator  of  America,  the  Abbe  Brizard,  in  his  address, 
observed  very  ingeniously  that  it  was  the  first  time  that  a Republic  had 
rendered  such  homage  to  a King. 

Bachaumont,  in  his  account  of  this  celebration  of  the  birth  of  the 
new  Republic  of  the  United  States,  adds  that  a bust  of  Franklin, 
presented  by  M.  Houdon,  was  inaugurated  amid  the  acclamations 
of  all  the  spectators.1  Nearly  a score  of  years  later  Soulavie,  con- 
firming the  criticism  of  Larousse,  that  his  historical  memoirs  are 
more  interesting  than  accurate,  writes:2 

That  country  [the  United  States]  can  never  forget  her  obligation  to 
Louis  XVI,  her  benefactor.  Congress  voted  a statue  to  that  King  at 
Philadelphia,  with  the  following  inscription  which  I received  from  Mr. 
Franklin.  It  is  probably  the  only  statue  and  inscription,  remaining  in  its 
proper  place,  to  the  honor  of  that  monarch  whose  strange  destiny  was 
such  that  the  establishment  of  a Republic  in  America  raised  edifices  to 
his  memory  which  the  institution  of  another  Republic  in  France  over- 
turned. 

1 “Memoires  Secrets,”  March  11,  1783,  Vol.  XXII,  p.  154. 

2 “Memoirs  of  the  Reign  of  Louis  XVI,”  London,  1802,  Vol.  IV,  p.  342. 


84 


Life  and  Works  of 


Of  course  there  never  was  any  monument  erected  to  Louis  XVI, 
in  Philadelphia  or  anywhere  else,  by  Congress;  but  Franklin  gave 
the  rumor  credence  by  his  presence  and  by  listening  to  the  remarks 
of  Brizard;  and  as  he  was  a personal  friend  of  Soulavie,  there  is  no 
reason  to  discredit  Soulavie’s  statement  that  Franklin  gave  him  the 
inscription,  which  makes  this  affair  all  the  more  singular  and  unin- 
telligible, unless  it  can  be  explained  as  a stroke  of  diplomacy  by  the 
wily  diplomat.  It  is  certainly  both  curious  and  interesting,  for 
which  reason  we  have  given  all  that  can  be  learned  of  the  incident. 

The  only  action  of  Congress  that  could  give  any  color  to  such  a 
rumor  was  a resolution  of  October  29,  1781,  “That  the  United 
States  in  Congress  Assembled  will  cause  to  be  erected  at  York  in 
Virginia  a marble  column  adorned  with  emblems  of  the  Alliance 
between  the  United  States  and  his  Most  Christian  Majesty  and  in- 
scribed with  a succinct  narrative  of  the  surrender  of  Earl  Corn- 
wallis to  his  Excellency  General  Washington.”  This  was  referred 
to  the  Secretary  of  Foreign  Affairs,  and  Livingston  wrote  to  Frank- 
lin, December  16,  “I  enclose  a resolution  of  Congress  for  erecting 
a pillar  to  commemorate  the  victory  at  Yorktown,”  and  asked 
Franklin  to  assist  him  in  carrying  the  resolution  into  effect.  This 
was  never  carried  out,  and  nearly  a century  later,  on  December  3, 
1879,  Congress  passed  a resolution  reciting  that  of  October  29, 
1781,  and  appropriating  $100,000  to  the  erection  of  a monument 
commemorative  of  the  centennial  anniversary  of  the  surrender  at 
Yorktown  in  its  place.  Whether  this  original  resolution  was  the 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  85 

seed  that  grew  into  a monument  to  Louis  XVI,  we  cannot  tell,  but 
great  trees  have  grown  from  smaller  acorns  than  this. 

Caffieri  writes  to  Franklin,  September  i,  1783: 

Permit  me  to  reiterate  my  request  in  praying  you,  Sir,  to  be  so  good 
as  to  remember  me  in  case  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  should 
erect  some  monuments  to  the  glory  of  the  nation  or  to  the  Generals  who 
have  contributed  to  it. 

And  again,  October  29 : 

In  reading  the  last  Gazette,  I noticed  that  the  United  States  of 
America  has  the  intention  of  erecting  a statue  to  Genl.  Washington  and 
that  it  is  to  be  executed  in  Paris.  If  the  thing  is  true  I beg  of  you,  Sir, 
to  recall  me  to  your  mind.  I have  some  claims  upon  your  choice : senior- 
ity over  persons  who  may  make  the  same  request  to  you ; your  Portrait 
and  the  tomb  of  Montgomery  must  have  proved  to  you  my  zeal  and 
knowledge. 

This  is  followed  two  months  later  by  a similar  application.  On 
December  31  he  writes: 

I learn  from  the  public  prints  that,  in  spite  of  a costly  war,  the  Amer- 
ican states,  to  establish  civil  authority  more  thoroughly  and  render 
commerce  more  flourishing,  propose  building  a City  and  a palace  for 
Congress.  I venture  to  hope,  from  your  goodness,  that  if  my  feeble 
talents  can  be  employed,  you  will  call  me  to  mind  and  believe  that  my 
eagerness  and  zeal  may  perhaps  render  me  worthy  of  your  choice.  Be 
persuaded  that  I should  regard  as  one  of  the  most  glorious  moments  of 
my  life,  that  in  which  I should  be  fortunate  enough  to  immortalize  in 
some  way  the  most  brilliant  epoch  of  the  eighteenth  century. 


86 


Life  and  Works  of 


Through  the  following  year  Caffieri  seems  to  have  preserved  an 
almost  ominous  silence,  which  is  emphasized  by  the  broadside  that 
he  fired  during  the  final  months  of  the  Franklins’  sojourn  in  France. 
We  have  already  read  of  Caffieri’s  earlier  jealousy  of  Houdon,  and 
of  his  anonymous  attack  upon  him  as  a man  and  as  an  artist,  and 
now  we  have  more  of  it  in  the  sharp  correspondence  between  Caf- 
fieri and  William  Temple  Franklin. 

From  Paris,  Caffieri  writes  to  the  younger  Franklin,  February 
19, 1785: 

I have  learned  that  M.  Houdon  is  charged  on  the  part  of  Congress  to 
execute  two  statues.  I confess  that,  after  having  made  the  portrait  of 
M.  Franklin  gratuitously  and  the  tomb  of  General  Montgomery,  where 
I contented  myself  with  the  glory  of  its  execution,  I conceived  that  would 
pave  the  way  for  important  works,  and  it  was  very  far  removed  from 
my  thoughts  that  I should  be  overlooked,  basing  my  hopes  on  the  word 
of  M.  Franklin,  and  that  you  did  me  the  honor  to  promise  to  have  me 
in  mind,  should  anything  occur.  This  is  why  I have  recourse  to  you, 
Sir;  not  being  able  as  yet  to  persuade  myself  of  this  preference  to  my 
injury.  If  by  chance  this  undertaking  should  not  lie  entirely  with  your- 
self and  M.  Franklin,  I hope  that  you  will  nevertheless  interest  yourself 
in  my  favor,  and  if  the  entire  undertaking  may  not  be  confided  to  me,  I 
venture  to  expect,  from  your  good  offices  and  the  justice  of  my  remon- 
strance, that  you  shall  have  me  included  for  some  part  of  it. 

On  March  1 1,  not  having  had  a reply  from  Temple  Franklin,  he 
writes  to  him  again,  and  for  the  first  time  follows  his  signature  with 
his  titles  and  address: 

I had  the  honor  to  write  to  you  last  month  to  ask  you  for  enlighten- 


WMAMMJLrKM  IB  If  GA.WWILM'M'K 


■ 


«7 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon 

ment  upon  a rumor  prevalent.  It  is  claimed  that  M.  Houdon  has  been 
charged  to  execute  for  Congress,  two  Statues,  and  that  he  has  obtained 
preference  over  me,  in  spite  of  my  seniority  and  the  promises  made  me. 
I beg  of  you  to  tell  me  whether  I am  still  to  hope  in  this  matter  or 
whether  I must  abandon  it.  You  will  oblige  me  extremely  by  answering 
me. 

I have  the  honor  to  be  entirely,  Sir, 

Your  very  humble  and  obedient  Servant, 

Caffieri, 

Sculptor  to  the  King,  Professor  of  his  Royal  Academy  of 
Painting  and  Sculpture,  rue  des  Cannelles,  Faubourg  St.- 
Germain. 

On  the  following  day  Lair  de  la  Motte,  who  was  private  secre- 
tary to  Dr.  Franklin  for  from  five  to  six  years,  wrote  to  Caffieri 
from  Passy: 

I gave  an  account  to  Mr.  Franklin  of  what  you  did  me  the  honor  to 
inform  me  of  yesterday  touching  the  bust  which  has  been  lost  through 
Sr.  de  Lorme.  He  is  annoyed  at  the  accident  and  asks  you  to  be  good 
enough  to  furnish  another  one,  that  he  trusts  you  will  have  packed  like 
the  first  one  and  afterwards  forwarded  to  Mr.  Bondfield,  merchant  at 
Bordeaux,  by  a carrier  more  faithful  and  less  costly  than  Sr.  de  Lorme, 
if  the  thing  is  possible.  As  soon  as  the  consignment  is  made,  Mr.  Frank- 
lin asks  you  to  be  good  enough  to  advise  him  so  that  he  may  notify  Mr. 
Bondfield.  He  will  be  very  glad  also  at  the  same  time  to  receive  your 
bill  covering  all  your  expenditures  for  this  purpose. 

But  still  Temple  Franklin  keeps  silence  and  makes  no  reply  to 
Caffieri’s  letters.  This  is  too  much  for  the  hot-headed  sculptor,  and 
he  bursts  forth  again  on  March  31st: 


88 


Life  and  Works  of 


I have  had  the  honor  of  writing  you  twice.  I had  flattered  myself 
that  I should  receive  an  answer  from  you,  as,  when  having  been  obliged 
to  write  to  Ministers,  Princes  and  the  highest  dignitaries  of  the  Court, 
they  have  always  made  answer.  This  oversight  on  your  part  has  much 
surprised  me;  however,  it  has  not  prevented  me,  according  to  your  re- 
quest made  by  you  through  a letter  received  from  M.  Lair  de  la  Motte, 
from  the  undertaking  to  hand  over  a plaster  bust  of  M.  Franklin  to  Sr. 
de  Lorme,  with  advice  carefully  to  pack  and  box;  he  even  charged  him- 
self with  procuring  the  Passport  and  the  covering  with  lead.  He  shipped 
it  on  the  28th  of  this  month,  as  you  will  see  by  the  memorandum  enclosed 
which  comes  to  the  sum  of  4of  14c 

and  for  the  plaster  bust  96 

frc  136  14 

To  these  communications  Temple  Franklin  replied  in  no  uncer- 
tain terms  on  April  3,  without  specifically  mentioning  the  last  one, 
at  the  same  time  carefully  preserving  a copy  of  his  letter  among  his 
papers.  He  wrote: 

If  I have  not  replied  sooner,  Sir,  to  the  two  letters  that  you  did  me  the 
honor  to  write  me,  it  was  simply  from  a feeling  of  delicacy,  as  not  being 
able  to  do  so  without  stating  disagreeable  truths,  and  it  seems  to  me  that 
you  should  have  understood  it  and  not  reproach  me  on  the  subject.  You 
compel  me  now  to  speak  and  possibly  wound  you  more  in  the  answering 
than  in  remaining  silent.  In  the  first  place,  Sir,  M.  Houdon  is  not  com- 
missioned by  Congress  to  execute  Statues ; and  even  if  he  were,  I see  no 
reason  why  you  should  cry  out  against  it  as  you  do.  The  claims  you  put 
forward,  with  so  much  assurance,  are  for  the  most  part  ill  founded,  and 
some  of  them  unseemly.  My  grandfather  has  been  as  much  surprised  as 
I have,  and  he  never  imagined  that,  when  he  yielded  to  your  entreaties 
and  those  of  his  friends  in  giving  you  sittings,  that  a day  would  come 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  89 

when  you  would  upbraid  him  for  your  having  made  his  bust  Gratuiously ; 
and  that  upon  this  you  would  found  your  claim  for  being  employed  by 
Congress.  M.  Houdon  has  likewise  made  the  bust  of  my  grandfather 
Gratuiously , and  moreover  has  sent  four  in  plaister,  also  Gratuiously ; 
but  he  has  not  boasted  of  it  and  has  not  thought  it  a reason  for  being  em- 
ployed by  Congress,  in  preference  to  any  one  else,  for  works  which  Con- 
gress might  deem  expedient  to  have  executed  in  this  country.  What  you 
also  advance  relative  to  the  tomb  of  General  Montgomery  has  no  better 
foundation  than  the  promise  which  you  pretend  was  made  to  you  by  my 
grandfather.  He  keeps  all  those  that  he  makes,  and  as  for  that,  never 
makes  any  of  this  nature.  After  receiving  the  price  agreed  upon  in  ad- 
vance for  the  Tomb,  how  can  you  say  that  you  contented  yourself  with 
the  glory  of  its  execution?  Believe  me,  Sir,  it  is  not  thus  one  gains  the 
esteem  of  honest  people ; and  when  going  such  lengths  to  prove  disinter- 
estedness, the  one  doing  so  often  discloses  his  real  feelings. 

P.  S.  Mr.  Lamotte  will  immediately  call  at  M.  Caffieri’s  to  hand  him 
the  1 3 6f . 14c.  which  are  due  him  for  the  bust  that  he  sent  to  Bordeaux. 

The  bust  referred  to  in  this  postscript  was  sent  by  Franklin  to 
Sir  Edward  Newenham,  of  Dublin,  a member  of  the  Irish  parlia- 
ment from  1769  to  1797,  who  was  such  a keen  friend  of  the  colonies 
that  he  told  Franklin,  “Upon  the  news  of  Montgomery’s  death  at 
Quebec,  I appeared  in  deep  mourning  in  the  Irish  parliament- 
nay,  deeper  than  his  only  brother.”1  Newenham  had  been  pleading 
with  Franklin  for  his  bust  for  nearly  two  years.  He  writes  to  him, 
October  17,  1783,  “My  better  part  desires  her  most  respectful  and 
affectionate  respects  to  his  Excellency.  She  ardently  longs  to  grace 

1 Alexander  Montgomery — “Black  Montgomery,”  as  he  was  called — represented 
Donegal  in  the  Irish  parliament  from  1769  to  1800. 


Life  and  Works  of 


90 

our  new  study  with  his  Bust.  I have  the  place  prepared  for  it. 
Vessels  leave  Bordeaux  for  this  port  frequently.”  Three  days  later 
he  writes,  “We  are  anxious  for  the  treasure  of  the  Bust”;  and  in 
another  week,  “Lady  Newenham,  still  anxious  for  the  Bust,  desires 
her  best  and  sincerest  respects.”  But  they  did  not  receive  it  until 
a few  days  before  Franklin  left  France.  Newenham  writes  to 
Franklin,  June  4,  1785: 

This  day  I had  infinite  pleasure  in  receiving  your  most  obliging  letter, 
and  yesterday  I received  the  Bust,  from  on  board  Captain  Murphy,  and 
never  parted  from  it  untill  I put  it  up  in  my  library.  I mentioned  to  the 
Collector  and  other  officers  what  it  was f and  they  most  obligingly  let  it 
pass  without  unpacking  it;  two  chairmen  carried  it  on  a bier  and  I rode 
along  with  them  to  Belcamp.  Accept,  my  Dear  Sir  and  much  respected 
Friend,  for  such  I pride  myself  in  calling  you,  the  warmest  thanks  of 
Lady  Newenham  and  me. 

When  it  got  bruited  abroad  that  Newenham  had  this  bust,  a 
present  from  Franklin,  the  English  people  declared  it  was  an  im- 
posture, that  Franklin  was  notoriously  too  poor  to  pay  a sculptor  to 
make  his  bust.  It  is  to  this  that  Newenham  alludes  in  his  last  letter 
to  Franklin,  written  January  12,  1786: 

One  amusing  fiction  was  that  I bought  an  old  Bust  of  Lord  Chan- 
cellor Newport  and  pretended  it  was  yours,  for  that  it  was  well  known 
you  were  so  poor  that  you  never  sat  for  your  Bust.  However,  many  of 
the  Sycophants  have  been  to  see  it.  ...  A few  that  remember  you  here 
declare  it  brings  you  fully  to  their  remembrance. 

There  is  an  unconfirmed  tradition  that  this  bust  was  destroyed 
during  the  Irish  insurrection  of  1798. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  91 

But  to  return  to  the  Caffieri-Franklin  correspondence.  Caffieri 
replied  to  Temple  Franklin  under  date  of  April  8,  1785 : 

You  had  good  cause,  Sir,  to  remark  that  your  answer  would  give  me 
greater  pain  than  your  silence.  I did  not  think  myself  exposed  to  such 
an  one  from  you,  and  surely  you  would  have  avoided  me  the  pain  if  you 
had  preserved  the  coolness  and  reflection  of  which  you  are  capable.  It 
must  only  result  from  a first  movement  of  ill  temper,  that  you  attribute 
to  me  low  motives,  humiliating  to  myself,  drawn  from  my  applications 
and  expressions.  In  the  first  place,  Sir,  I had  no  other  object  in  wishing 
to  execute  the  bust  of  Mr.  Franklin,  than  the  glory  of  transmitting  to  the 
future  the  portrait  of  so  great  a man.  I was  honored  in  making  him  a 
gift  of  my  talents,  and  I never  pretended  to  any  other  reward  than 
meriting  his  patronage.  That  is  why  I took  the  liberty  of  claiming  it  on 
an  occasion  when  I thought  I might  hope  to  obtain  it.  M.  Houdon,  you 
say,  has  gratuitously  (a  word  which  you  please  yourself  in  repeating 
several  times)— has  made,  I say,  the  portrait  of  your  august  grandfather. 
This  is  for  me  but  a further  unpleasantness.  In  granting  also  this  favor 
to  M.  Houdon,  it  was  almost  like  saying  to  the  Public  that  mine  had  not 
given  satisfaction,  in  spite  of  the  success  it  had.  Certainly,  if  M.  Hou- 
don had  begun,  I should  have  had  the  delicacy  not  to  have  followed  after 
him.  These  are  honest  ways  of  acting  as  observed  between  profes- 
sionals. You  have  as  well  wrongly  interpreted  the  paragraph  touching 
the  tomb  of  General  Montgomery.  I stated  that  I had  made  it  for  the 
Glory  of  the  thing,  and  this  is  the  Truth.  Proud  in  being  employed  by  a 
state  just  emerging  into  Freedom,  I contented  myself  with  covering  my 
expenses.  I can  prove  this  by  the  account  I have  of  it.  I think  that 
when  an  artist  gives  his  time  and  his  talents,  he  can  claim  credit  of  having 
worked  for  Glory. 

There,  Sir,  you  have  my  misdeeds;  condescend  to  estimate  them.  I 
thought  that,  having  acted  with  so  much  zeal,  I could  without  showing 
pretension  hope  to  obtain  preference  over  my  fellow  artists.  Your  let- 


92 


Life  and  Works  of 


ter  has  cruelly  undeceived  me.  You  might,  however,  have  spared  me 
the  insulting  irony  of  the  closing  lines.  You  attribute  to  me  conduct 
unworthy  an  upright  man  and  myself.  I have  never  been  guided  by  sor- 
did interests;  everything  proves  it.  If  I were  better  known  to  you,  you 
would  have  rendered  me  the  justice  I deserve,  and  I am  sure  that,  follow- 
ing your  goodness  of  heart,  you  will  regret  having  attributed  to  me 
feelings  I never  had. 

This  seems  to  have  closed  the  correspondence  between  Caffieri 
and  William  Temple  Franklin,  but  among  the  Franklin  papers 
there  is  a “Copy  of  a letter  from  Caffieri  to  one  of  his  friends,” 
which,  from  the  dates  mentioned  in  it,  “November,  1783,”  and 
“forgotten  for  eighteen  months”  (which  would  bring  it  to  May, 
1785),  as  well  as  its  subject,  would  seem  to  have  been  called  forth 
by  the  preceding  correspondence.  As  part  of  the  res  gestce,  we 
give  it : 

After  the  interest,  Sir,  that  you  have  always  been  so  good  as  to  show 
me,  I feel  that  I should  give  you  an  account  of  what  passed  between  Mr. 
Franklin,  Jr.,  and  myself.  I confess  that  I was  not  expecting  such  a dis- 
cussion, and  as  I consider  that  an  honorable  man  owes  it  to  himself  to 
prevent  the  attacks  of  calumny,  I take  the  liberty  of  enclosing  with  this 
letter  the  copy  of  that  of  Mr.  Franklin,  Jr.,  and  those  which  I was  obliged 
to  write  him,  being  prevented  from  going  out  by  a cold.  I pray  you  as  a 
favor  to  look  them  over  and  to  communicate  their  contents  to  Mad.  — - — , 
that  she  may  know  the  truth.  I venture  to  add  the  assurance  of  my  re- 
spect. You  will  see,  Sir,  and  she  will  be  able  to  judge,  if  my  fervor,  my 
zeal  and  my  conduct  deserved  so  hard  an  answer.  I could  call  it  by  a 
stronger  term.  It  is  essential  that  you  should  make  yourself  familiar 
with  the  facts  about  the  Bust  of  which  there  is  a question. 


93 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon 

In  the  month  of  November,  1783,  Mr.  Franklin  asked  me  for  a bust 
of  his  distinguished  grandfather  that  he  wished  to  send  to  America.  I 
had  it  taken  to  M.  de  Lorme’s  for  packing.  This  bust  was  forgotten 
for  18  months  and  Mr.  Franklin,  Jr.,  having  inquired  for  it  of  M.  de 
Lorme  in  the  month  of  March  last,  it  was  found  to  have  disappeared, 
which  gave  him  occasion  to  have  me  written  to  by  his  Clerk.  You  will 
find  the  copy  of  that  letter,  which  I beg  of  you  to  keep  with  the  others  as 
an  authentic  proof  of  my  conduct.  Jealous  to  preserve  the  esteem  in 
which  I stand  with  you,  I wish  to  show  you  that  I am  worthy  of  its  con- 
tinuance. Mr.  Franklin  should,  without  doubt,  have  been  more  just 
toward  an  honest  man,  and  not  wound  him  in  the  most  vital  point,  his 
honor. 

Such  a continuing  broadside  of  importunity  and  complaint 
would  be  almost  enough  to  ruffle  even  the  equanimity  of  the  philos- 
opher Franklin,  as  we  have  seen  it  did  ruffle  his  grandson,  and  two 
letters  that  were  finally  discovered,  addressed  to  him,  did  accom- 
plish it.  They  are  dated  respectively  June  10  and  15,  1785,  the  last 
one  filled  with  the  plaint  that  Franklin  first  answered,  and  then 
erased,  in  his  letter  of  June  20,  given  above.  Here,  then,  was  the 
unknown  sculptor  discovered;  he  whose  “two  obliging  letters”  Dr. 
Franklin,  with  humorous  satire,  acknowledged  among  the  last  be- 
fore leaving  Paris,  and  which  are  now  for  the  first  time  printed. 
Translated,  they  are  as  follows: 

June  10,  1785. 

Various  occupations  deprive  me  of  the  advantage  of  paying  my  re- 
spects and  wishing  you  health  and  a prosperous  voyage.  The  period 
during  which  I have  had  the  honor  of  your  acquaintance  will  remain  for 
me  an  unforgetable  event.  I shall  always  Glory  in  having  known  a man 


94 


Life  and  Works  of 


so  rare  by  his  virtues,  his  enlightenment  and  his  merit.  Following  the 
directions  of  the  note  you  addressed  to  me,  I have  had  two  of  your  busts 
in  plaster  put  in  proper  repair;  you  may,  when  you  like,  send  for  them. 

June  15th  he  wrote: 

I have  been  assiduous  in  making  the  repairs  myself  to  the  two  busts 
you  asked  me  for,  and  they  are  in  condition  to  be  conveyed  wherever  you 
may  desire.  I should  have  much  preferred,  if  multiplied  occupations  had 
not  deprived  me  of  the  pleasure,  of  visiting  you  in  person  to  pay  my 
homage  and  to  wish  you  good  health  and  a happy  voyage.  I shall  never 
forget  the  honor  of  your  acquaintance,  and  I shall  always  congratulate 
myself  on  having  been  led  to  make  the  portrait  of  a man  as  rare  by  his 
virtues  as  by  his  merits,  and  whose  works  will  go  down  to  the  most  dis- 
tant posterity.  If  my  services  in  America  could  have  been  to  your  liking, 
I should  have  been  most  eager  to  accompany  you,  but  you  take  with  you 
one  of  my  fellow  artists,  which  is  reason  for  me  to  hold  my  peace.  I am 
ignorant  of  the  art  of  supplanting  any  one,  although  frequently  having 
experienced  it  at  the  hands  of  others.  I had  the  honor  of  writing  you  on 
Wednesday  last;  not  having  received  any  reply,  I feared  that  my  letter 
might  have  miscarried. 

Here  was  the  hidden  truth  unmasked,  and  this  discovery  was  of 
course  a clean  annihilation  of  all  claims  for  Ceracchi  to  the  author- 
ship of  a bust  of  Franklin;  a claim  that  we  do  not  know  or  believe 
was  ever  made  by  Ceracchi  for  himself,  but  doubtless  arose  from 
the  fact  that  Ceracchi,  who  visited  this  country  and  resided  here 
for  some  time  between  1791  and  1795,  and  made  busts  of  Washing- 
ton, Hamilton  and  others,  was  the  only  sculptor,  aside  from  Hou- 
don,  whose  name  was  familiar  to  our  people,  and  thus  his  name 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  95 

became  popularly  attached  to  the  bust  of  Franklin  by  Caffieri, 
whose  name  was  not  then  known  here  any  better  than  it  is  now. 

From  these  and  other  letters  of  Caffieri  in  the  great  Franklin  col- 
lection at  the  American  Philosophical  Society,  it  would  appear 
that  not  less  than  six  of  his  busts  of  Franklin  passed  through  Frank- 
lin’s own  hands,  and  one  at  least  was  destined  for  this  country. 
December  9,  1777,  Caffieri  sent  a note  to  Franklin,  accompanying 
a bust  as  a present  to  William  Temple  Franklin,  which  he  en- 
dorsed, “Caffieri  with  a Burst  as  a present.”  Whether  this  was  a 
slip  or  a pleasantry,  it  is  difficult  to  tell  when  dealing  with  a profes- 
sional humorist.  This  letter  has  a postscript  of  some  interest:  “I 
reiterate  my  injunction  that  it  shall  not  be  permitted  to  allow  copies 
of  any  kind  to  be  made  of  this  portrait.  If  any  one  should  desire  to 
see  it,  they  have  only  to  address  themselves  to  me.”  On  March  17 
he  wrote,  evidently  to  William  Temple  Franklin,  “I  have  had  the 
Bust  of  M.  Franklin  packed  up”;  and  two  days  later,  “The  box  is 
ready  to  despatch.  You  may  have  it  taken  when  it  suits  your  con- 
venience. Here  is  the  memorandum  and  a note  of  how  it  should 
be  unpacked,  which  it  is  needful  to  send  to  America.”  This  un- 
doubtedly refers  to  a bust  intended  for  Franklin’s  daughter,  Mrs. 
Bache,  as  she  wrote  to  William  Temple  Franklin  from  Philadel- 
phia, March  29,  1780,  “I  am  much  mortified  at  not  receiving  the 
Bust.  I was  at  a loss  to  understand  the  directions  for  unpacking.” 
June  16  Caffieri  writes  to  the  same,  “Here  are  the  two  Busts  of  M. 
Franklin  that  you  have  desired  of  me,  to  which  I have  given  a 


Life  and  Works  of 


96 

coating  of  wax,  mixed  with  spirits  of  Turpentine,  rendering  them 
hard  and  brilliant.  The  Bust  I have  had  packed  and  these  two 
bring  it  to  four  Louis  each,  making  the  total  twelve  Louis” ; and  on 
October  29,  1783,  covering  a copy  of  his  letter  to  Dr.  Franklin  of 
the  same  date,  “I  beg  to  remind  you  that  I have  the  mould  of  M. 
Franklin’s  portrait  and  that  I can  make  as  many  as  may  be  desired.” 

Whether  any  one  of  these  busts  ever  reached  America  and  has 
survived  the  ravages  of  time  and  yet  exists,  we  do  not  know,  as  we 
do  not  know  a single  bust  of  Franklin,  in  this  country,  indubitably 
ear-marked  “by  Caffieri.”  But  the  letter  of  Franklin  to  the  so  long 
“unknown  sculptor”  directed  him  “to  deliver  one  of  the  Busts  to 
M.  le  Roy,  of  the  Academy  of  Sciences.”  This  was  a clue  to  the 
possible  finding  of  an  unquestionable  bust  of  Franklin  by  Caffieri 
not  to  be  lost,  and  an  inquiry  at  the  Institute  of  France,  of  which 
the  Academy  of  Sciences  is  an  integral  part,  found  the  identical 
bust  that  Franklin  had  presented,  with  the  incised  signature,  “fait 
par  J.  J . Caffieri  en  1777  ” Photographs  that  I had  made  of  this 
bust,  in  the  Institute,  in  profile,  three-quarter  and  full  face,  made  it 
certain  that  the  Caffieri  bust  of  Franklin  was  the  type  heretofore 
known  as  the  Ceracchi  bust,  and  transferred  the  name  of  Jean 
Jacques  Caffieri  to  the  busts  that  had  been  for  a century  attributed 
to  Giuseppe  Ceracchi. 

This  was  no  great  surprise  to  me,  for,  except  upon  the  hypothesis 
that  Franklin’s  letter  of  June  20,  1785,  was  addressed  to  Ceracchi,  I 
had  never  been  able  to  bring  Franklin  and  Ceracchi  together,  or 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  97 

even  in  the  same  place  at  the  same  time,  at  the  period  represented 
in  this  bust,  a very  important  incident  to  enable  a sculptor  to  model 
a bust  from  life.  And  yet  I can  hardly  be  accused  as  blameworthy 
for  having  tripped  into  the  pitfall,  when  a record  of  the  false  tradi- 
tion was  made  as  early  as  “ July  8,  1811,”  on  which  date  the  Penn- 
sylvania Academy  of  the  Fine  Arts  bought  from  one  Simon  Chau- 
dron  for  $120  the  “Bust  of  Benjamin  Franklin  by  Cerraci”  it  now 
owns.  At  that  time  there  were  scores  of  persons  alive  who  had 
known  well  both  Franklin  and  Ceracchi,  among  them  no  less  a per- 
sonage than  George  Clymer,  the  president  of  the  institution  named, 
who  had  been  Franklin’s  colleague  in  Congress  and  with  him  had 
signed  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  If  this  error  could  be 
committed  so  early,  it  is  not  surprising  that  it  should  live  so  long. 

The  portraits  of  Franklin  by  Caffieri  and  by  Houdon  are  much 
alike,  as  it  is  only  natural  they  should  be,  modeled  as  they  were  by 
two  skilful  artists  only  a year  apart.  Therefore,  to  typify  them  it  is 
necessary  to  note  the  direction  of  the  eyes  and  the  details  of  dress, 
which  are  markedly  different  in  the  two  busts,  and  by  noting  these 
differences  it  is  impossible  to  confuse  one  bust  with  the  other  and 
misname  the  artist  of  either.  The  type  of  the  Caffieri  bust  of  Frank- 
lin can  be  defined  as  having  the  eyes  directed  to  the  front  and  with 
a loose-twisted  neck-cloth,  or  jabot,  hanging  down  outside  the 
waistcoat,  while  the  type  of  the  Houdon  bust  has  the  eyes  slightly 
elevated,  directed  to  left,  and  a waistcoat  buttoned,  well  up,  with 
one  button,  and  inside  the  waistcoat  a straight  neck-cloth  around 


Life  and  Works  of 


98 

the  throat.  These  distinctions  it  is  indispensable  to  bear  in  mind, 
as  only  by  neglecting  them  is  it  possible  to  confuse  the  bust  by  Caf- 
fieri  with  the  bust  by  Houdon. 

What  seems  more  than  odd  is  that  although,  as  I have  said,  I 
know  not  a single  bust  of  Franklin  in  this  country  bearing  the  name 
of  Caffieri,  the  busts  of  Franklin  that  are  most  generally  seen  here 
are  of  the  Caffieri  type,  having  the  loose  neck-cloth.  This  is  chiefly 
due  to  the  fact  that  all  of  the  busts  of  either  type  are  merely  copies, 
which  also  accounts  for  variations  found  in  pose  and  details.  Not 
only  were  there  early  importations  from  Italy  of  busts  of  Franklin, 
but  at  the  beginning  of  the  last  century  advertisements  appeared  in 
the  Philadelphia  newspapers  of  James  Traquair,  a stone-cutter, 
offering  for  sale  busts  of  Washington,  Franklin,  Hamilton  and 
William  Penn,  either  “in  the  best  carara  marble  or  in  Italian  or 
Pennsylvania  marble.”  Traquair  employed  to  do  this  work  John 
Dixey,  an  Irishman  of  some  ability  as  a sculptor,  and  Giuseppe 
Jardella,  a skilful  Italian  carver  who  had  been  brought  over  to 
America  to  carve  the  embellishments  for  the  great  mansion  being 
built  in  Philadelphia  for  Robert  Morris,  the  illustrious  financier 
of  the  American  Revolution,  for  the  marble  work  of  which  Tra- 
quair had  the  contract.  Upon  Morris’s  bankruptcy  and  the  aban- 
donment of  his  “Folly,”  as  the  mansion  was  called,  Jardella  and 
Dixey  were  employed  to  carve  busts,  and  Traquair  presented  to  the 
Pennsylvania  Hospital  busts  of  Penn  and  of  Washington  in  Penn- 
sylvania marble,  and  to  the  Pennsylvania  Academy  of  the  Fine 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  99 

Arts,  in  1810,  busts  of  Washington  and  of  Hamilton ; while  the  bust 
of  Franklin  purchased  by  the  Academy  the  next  year  as  “by  Cer- 
raci”  doubtless  came  from  the  same  factory  after  Traquair’s  death, 
which  occurred  April  15,  1811.1  Mr.  Lorado  Taft,  in  writing  of 
this  last-named  bust  of  Franklin,  builded  wiser  than  he  knew. 
Speaking  of  Ceracchi,2  he  says : 

Two  marble  busts  attributed  to  him  may  be  seen  in  the  Pennsylvania 
Academy:  a “Hamilton”  and  a “Franklin,”  both  of  which  are  weak.  The 
first  is  a copy,  however,  by  John  Dixey,  and  it  is  likely  that  the  more 
glaring  defects  of  the  second — such  as  the  hair  carved  in  square  ropes — 
are  due  to  another  less  skilful  hand.  However,  the  pose  and  expression, 
which  are  undoubtedly  Ceracchi’s,  do  scant  justice  to  the  dignity  of  the 
subjects. 

How  different  would  Mr.  Taft’s  criticism  have  been  upon  Ce- 
racchi’s work  had  he  known  the  superb  original  of  Hamilton  in  the 
Lenox  Library,  New  York! 

We  have  now  given  for  the  first  time  the  true  history  of  the  only 
two  busts  of  Franklin,  assumedly  modeled  from  life,  that  we  know, 
—the  one  by  Caffieri,  of  1777,  and  that  by  Houdon,  of  1778;  and 
we  have  laid  down  immutable  rules  for  distinguishing  these  two 
famous  busts.  We  have  shown  that  there  is  no  bust  of  Franklin  by 
Ceracchi,  who  for  a century  has  been  credited  with  the  bust  by 
Caffieri.  We  have  shown  that  Franklin’s  letter  “to  a discontented 
artist,  whose  name  is  not  preserved,”  was  written  to  Jean  Jacques 

1Westcott,s  “History  of  Philadelphia,”  chapters  417  and  808. 

2 “History  of  American  Sculpture,”  p.  19. 


IOO 


Life  and  Works  of 


Caffieri,  and  we  have  identified  Caffieri’s  work  by  the  bust  of 
Franklin  delivered  by  Caffieri  to  M.  le  Roy,  on  the  order  of  Frank- 
lin given  in  this  very  letter.  We  have  learned  how  Franklin  and 
Caffieri  became  acquainted,  through  the  monument  ordered  by 
Congress  for  General  Montgomery,  and  how,  taking  advantage  of 
the  opportunity,  Caffieri  was  “the  first  to  seize  on  Franklin”1  and 
model  and  exhibit  his  bust,  which  was  purchased  out  of  the  Salon 
“pour  la  Direction  des  Batiments.”  Every  link  of  the  chain  is 
perfect. 

We  do  not  know,  however,  what  has  become  of  the  bust  that  was 
exhibited  at  the  Salon  and  acquired  by  the  King.  As  early  as 
August,  1780,  Pierre,  the  director  of  the  Academy  of  Fine  Arts  and 
first  painter  to  the  King,  informs  us  that  “M.  Caffieri  has  delivered, 
something  like  two  years  past,  the  terra-cotta  portrait  of  M.  Franck- 
lin.  This  work  was  valued  at  500  livres,  but  as  its  whereabouts  are 
unknown , the  amount  has  not  been  paid.”2  That  source  of  data 
upon  every  subject  happening  in  France  during  the  period  it  cov- 
ers, the  “Memoires  Secrets,”  has  a word  to  say  on  Caffieri’s  Frank- 
lin:3 

This  bust  shows  us  a philanthropist  seeking  a remedy  for  the  ills  of 
his  country.  One  witnesses  his  soul  aroused  in  indignation,  portrayed  in 
his  countenance,  altering  its  benignity.  It  appears  as  if  the  sculptor  had 
sketched  it  when  receiving  the  order  for  the  tomb  of  a general,  which, 
from  the  details  furnished,  it  is  evident  is  intended  for  America. 

1 Dilke,  “French  Architects  and  Sculptors  of  the  XVIII  Century,”  p.  119. 

2 Guiffrey’s  “Les  Caffieris,”  p.  241.  3 Vol.  IX,  p.  49. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  ioi 

While  Houdon’s  bust,  when  exhibited  two  years  later,  calls  from 
Grimm  the  exclamation,  “What  elevation  of  thought  is  seen  in  the 
bust  of  the  legislator  of  the  New  World!” 

To  the  superficial  observer  it  may  seem  as  though  too  much  space 
has  been  given  to  Caffieri  in  a work  upon  Jean  Antoine  Houdon. 
But  it  will  be  seen  how  much  they  had  to  do  with  each  other,  how 
closely  interwoven  were  their  professional  careers.  Delerot  and 
Legrelle,  in  their  monograph  on  Houdon  (p.  1 13 ) , say: 

Franklin,  Moliere  and  J.  J.  Rousseau  are  the  three  great  names  that 
really  belonged  to  this  exhibition  [1779]  ....  The  bust  of  Franklin  had 
already  been  executed  two  years  previously  in  plaster  by  Caffieri.  It 
would  seem  as  if  Franklin  had  been  but  half  satisfied  by  this  first  pro- 
duction, seeing  that  he  addressed  himself  to  Houdon,  as  to  a Judge  sit- 
ting in  a court  of  last  resort,  to  correct  the  errors  of  a less  able  or  inferior 
one.  His  confidence  in  Houdon  was  not  misplaced,  and  the  latter  dis- 
covered how  to  give  to  his  physiognomy  an  expression  of  great  elevation 
and  .shrewdness,  a characterization  of  nobility  devoid  of  stiffness,  of 
simplicity  and  moderation  free  from  affectation  of  any  sort.  Franklin 
ought  to  have  been  satisfied  this  time,  and  in  fact  he  was;  we  shall  soon 
find  proof  of  his  admiration  and  gratitude. 

Upon  this  Guiffrey  says:1 

It  is  known  that  Houdon  had  as  well  executed  a portrait  of  the  illus- 
trious savant.  Houdon’s  work,  also  in  terra-cotta,  was  exhibited  in  1779. 
The  two  artists  were  more  than  once  to  encounter  each  other  in  the  same 
field,  and  this  rivalry,  of  which  we  shall  have  frequent  occasion  to  speak, 
excited  an  inward  animosity,  showing  itself  in  various  unpleasant  ways. 


1 “Les  Caffieris,”  p.  243. 


102 


Life  and  Works  of 


It  must  be  recognized  that  contemporary  opinion  appears  to  have  given 
the  preference  to  Houdon,  and  posterity,  more  impartial,  has  confirmed 
this  opinion.  Perhaps  the  incontestable  and  more  productive  talent  of 
Houdon  caused  an  unmerited  prejudice  against  his  rival,  and  Caffieri 
showed  himself  too  sensitive  of  the  injury  he  felt  in  the  success  of  a 
younger  fellow-artist;  and  the  relations  of  the  two,  which  had  begun 
amicably,  even  affectionately,  underwent  a marked  change  owing  to  this 
continuous  rivalry  ...  a rivalry  that  was  not  long  in  changing  the 
friendship  of  youth  into  violent  animosity  and  implacable  jealousy. 

Guiffrey  then  goes  on  to  say  that  Delerot  and  Legrelle  think  that 

. . . the  bust  of  Franklin  by  Caffieri  could  have  had  but  little  suc- 
cess, as,  two  years  afterward,  Houdon  was  charged  with  the  execution 
of  a fresh  portrait  of  the  illustrious  man.  This  seems  to  be  a very  forced 
meaning  to  give  to  so  simple  a fact.  That  two  artists  of  equal  talent, 
both  in  search  of  models  calculated  to  attract  public  attention,  should 
have  crossed  each  other’s  paths  in  this  instance  as  in  others,  and  exhib- 
ited likenesses  of  the  same  distinguished  people  at  the  same  time,  seems 
only  natural. 

Guiffrey’s  view  on  this  point  is,  of  course,  the  only  reasonable  and 
tenable  one,  and  that  of  Delerot  and  Legrelle  simply  absurd  and 
regrettable,  as  their  client  was  too  big  a man  to  need  any  such 
fatuous  special  pleading,  while  the  facts  as  we  have  developed  them 
disprove  the  hypothesis  upon  which  they  builded.  Franklin  did 
not  employ  either  Caffieri  or  Houdon  to  model  his  bust.  They 
each  did  it  “gratuitously.”  Indeed,  the  opening  paragraph  of  a 
letter  from  Houdon  to  some  unknown  person  in  the  American 
Philosophical  Society,  which  was  doubtless  sent  to  Franklin  for 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  103 

information  and  preserved  by  him,  would  seem  to  negative  the  pos- 
sibility that  Franklin  had  sat  to  Houdon  for  his  bust,  and  we  have 
no  proof  that  he  did.  Here,  in  this  letter,  we  have  Houdon’s  own 
statement  that  he  has  just  then,  in  iy8j,  been  presented  to  Frank- 
lin. His  words  will  bear  no  other  interpretation  or  explanation, 
and  it  is  hardly  conceivable,  had  Franklin  sat  to  Houdon  for  his 
bust  in  1778,  that  five  years  later  Houdon  would  need  to  be  for- 
mally presented  to  the  simple-minded,  easily  accessible  Franklin. 
We  give  the  letter  and  leave  it  for  each  one  to  draw  his  own  con- 
clusion. 

Paris,  8th  Novbr.,  1783. 

Sir: 

The  day  after  you  had  the  kindness  to  present  me  to  Dr.  Franklin,  I 
called  at  your  domicile  to  thank  your  Son  for  all  his  kindness  and  to 
express  my  recognition  of  the  debt  I am  under  to  you ; at  the  same  time 
to  inform  you  that  M.  Bufon  proposed  to  carry,  himself,  to  Dr.  Frank- 
lin the  book  in  question  touching  the  mould  of  Louis  XV.  But  as  I 
fear  that  the  multitudinous  occupations  of  M.  Bufon  may  much  delay 
him,  if  you  will  permit  it  and  judge  it  appropriate  to  pass  over  to  him 
mine,  while  awaiting  the  one  that  is  to  be  given  him  as  his  own  property, 
I then  beg  you  to  send  it,  in  order  that  this  celebrated  man  may  suffer  no 
delay  in  the  wish  he  has  to  study  a work  of  that  kind.  It  will  be  another 
incentive  for  obliging  me  and  increasing  the  ground  of  my  gratitude.  I 
am,  Sir,  with  respect,  etc., 

Houdon. 

So  far  as  the  facts  bear  upon  Franklin’s  personal  opinion  upon 
either  bust,  the  evidence  would  be  overwhelming  in  favor  of  Caf- 
fieri’s,  as  we  have  proof  that  the  philosopher-statesman  ordered  at 


104 


Life  and  Works  of 


least  five  busts  from  Caffieri,  while  we  have  nothing  to  show  that  he 
ordered  even  one  from  Houdon,  and  this  in  the  face  of  the  evidence 
we  have  that  Houdon  presented  him  with  four  of  his,  “gratui- 
tously.” The  “proof”  that  Delerot  and  Legrelle  say  “we  shall  soon 
find”— that  Franklin  was  “satisfied”  with  Houdon’s  bust— is  no- 
where exhibited  in  their  monograph,  as  the  language  used  indicates 
it  is.  My  own  feeling  has  always  leaned  toward  the  Caffieri  bust, 
or,  as  we  knew  it  for  so  long,  the  Ceracchi.  It  is  indeed  the  head  of 
a philosopher,  and  much  finer  in  character  than  the  one  by  Hou- 
don, which  supports  the  presumption  that  Houdon’s  was  not  from 
life  sittings.  I cannot  understand  Houdon’s  idea  in  giving  the 
eyes,  in  his  bust  of  Franklin,  the  unnatural  direction  that  they  have ; 
particularly  as  he  was  noted  for  his  marvelous  skill  in  the  modeling 
of  eyes,  and  the  eyes  in  this  bust  are  most  skilfully  modeled,  but  they 
have  a restless  energy  that  one  does  not  expect  to  find  in  a jovial 
philosopher  of  seventy-two.  On  this  point  Metra  writes:1 

M.  d’Alembert  . . . presented  to  the  Academy  a superb  bust  of  the 
author  of  “Zaire,”  by  Houdon,  to  whose  house  all  Paris  goes  to  see  the 
busts  of  J.  J.  Rousseau,  of  Mr.  Franklin,  and  of  M.  d’Alembert.  One 
has  no  idea  of  the  striking  resemblances  of  these  portraits.  M.  Houdon 
has  a manner  of  his  own  for  rendering  eyes.  Never  has  sculpture  in  this 
direction  been  carried  so  far.  It  is  to  me  superior  to  painting. 

In  justice  all  around,  it  must  be  admitted,  however,  that  one 
labors  under  great  disadvantage  in  judging  any  piece  of  sculpture, 

1 “Correspondance  Secrete,”  November  14,  1778,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  117. 


WTBu&MIKlLJLM'  IBlf  IHLCCDUIirDCD^ 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  105 

and  particularly  a portrait,  a disadvantage  shared  in  equally  by  the 
sculptor,  for  it  is  impossible  to  know  just  how  the  modeler  left  his 
work.  What  we  get  is  always  second-hand,  and  sometimes  third- 
or  fourth-hand.  In  this  respect  the  sculptor’s  practice  of  his  art 
differs  materially  from  the  painter’s.  The  painter’s  work  is  all  the 
product  of  his  own  hand,  from  the  preliminary  sketch  to  the  fin- 
ished picture,  and  is  essentially  an  original  work.  Not  so  with  the 
sculptor’s  work.  He  makes  his  own  sketches,  fashions  with  his  own 
hand  his  creation  out  of  plastic  clay,  and  then  turns  his  original 
model  over  to  another  who  makes  a mould  and  produces  a cast  in 
plaster  or  in  metal.  Or,  if  the  work  is  to  be  perpetuated  in  stone, 
an  ordinary  stone-cutter  rough-hews  the  block  and  then  hands  it  to  a 
more  skilful  cutter,  often  a man  of  talent  not  far  inferior  to  his  em- 
ployer, who  shapes  it  into  the  likeness  of  the  model  or  really  carves 
it  in  stone,  also  enlarging  or  diminishing  it,  if  this  is  required. 
Finally,  the  artist  gives  some  finishing  touches  with  his  chisel,  but 
the  result  cannot  be  called  “an  original  work,”  in  the  sense  that  a 
painting  may  be  so  called.  The  clay  model  is  the  original  creation 
of  the  artist’s  brain  and  hand,  which  unfortunately,  not  being  per- 
manent, is  lost  as  soon  as  moulded,  so  that  the  cast,  being  almost  a 
facsimile  of  the  original  model,  is  far  more  valuable  and  reliable 
than  the  copy  in  stone. 

We  are  familiar  with  three  busts  of  Franklin  in  this  country  that 
are  signed  and  dated,  “houdon  f — 1778.”  One  is  a plaster  cast  in  the 
Boston  Athenaeum,  that  was  given  by  Houdon  to  Thomas  Jeffer- 


io  6 


Life  and  Works  of 


son;  another  is  a marble  in  the  Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art,  New 
York,  which  belonged  originally  to  Dr.  Samuel  Bard,  a contem- 
porary and  friend  of  Franklin;  and  the  third  is  a bronze,  under  life 
size,  that  came  from  Paris  and  is  owned  by  Mr.  Joseph  Y.  Jeanes,  of 
Philadelphia.  Of  these,  the  plaster  cast  is  unquestionably  the  most 
natural,  and  doubtless,  for  the  reasons  we  have  given,  nearest  to  the 
original  clay  model  as  it  left  the  sculptor’s  hands.  A signed  bust  of 
Franklin  by  Houdon,  in  “platre  teinte,”  belonging  to  M.  Lucien 
Faucou,  of  Paris,  was  exhibited  in  the  Pavilion  National  de  la  Re- 
publique  Frangaise,  at  the  Chicago  Exposition,  in  1893  5 another  is 
in  the  Louvre;  yet  another  is  in  the  Museum  at  Angers;  and  one 
belongs  to  Mr.  Edward  Tuck,  of  Paris. 

In  1802  (January  20)  Dupont  de  Nemours  wrote  from  New 
York  to  Jefferson:1 

Houdon  has  left  in  America  a very  fine  bust  of  Benjamin  Franklin, 
which  is  now  at  my  house.  This  bust  is  in  marble,  is  worth  100  Louis  of 
our  money,  equalling  about  480  dollars.  Nothing  would  be  more  appro- 
priate than  for  the  nation  to  place  it  in  your  Capitol  ( Va.) , and  Houdon, 
to  whom  Virginia  still  owes  a thousand  crowns  on  the  statue  of  Wash- 
ington, stands  in  real  need  of  the  money. 

Jefferson  sent  this  extract  to  James  Monroe,  then  Governor  of 
Virginia,2  but  Monroe  did  not  think  he  was  authorized  to  purchase 

1 Jefferson  MS.  Correspondence,  Library  of  Congress. 

2 Letter,  Jefferson  to  Monroe,  February  28,  1802.  Dreer  Collection,  Pennsylvania 
Historical  Society. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  107 

the  bust  without  the  sanction  of  the  legislature,1  and  Jefferson  so 
informed  Dupont.2  Virginia  did  not  buy  the  bust,  and  we  do  not 
know  what  became  of  it.  May  it  not  be  the  one  now  in  the  Metro- 
politan Museum  of  Art,  New  York,  the  only  Houdon  bust  of 
Franklin  in  marble  that  we  know? 

Again,  in  the  Salon  of  1791,  Houdon  exhibited  a bust  of  Frank- 
lin, which  has  given  color  to  the  tradition  that  the  sculptor,  when 
in  Philadelphia  in  1785,  modeled  a second  bust  of  Franklin;  but 
we  have  not  been  able  to  find  any  evidence  that  he  made  more  than 
the  one  bust  of  him,  that  of  1778.  Any  other  view  seems  also  to  be 
negatived  by  Delerot  and  Legrelle,  who  say  (p.  189)  : 

The  year  1791  proved  a revolutionary  period  for  the  public  exhibi- 
tions, introducing  plebeian  art  to  the  honors  of  the  Salon.  Until  then 
the  academical  aristocracy  were  solely  permitted  to  exhibit  their  works 
at  the  palace  of  the  Louvre.  A decree  by  the  National  Assembly,  dated 
August  21,  1791,  suppressed  this  last  privilege  and  this  last  aristocracy, 
leaving  the  public  voice  the  care  of  very  quickly  reestablishing  it  through 
vote  and  criticism.  Equality  at  the  Salon  was  a mere  chimerical  hope. 
Here  were  to  be  found  by  Houdon  a repetition  in  bronze  of  his  Winter; 
a plaster  bust  of  a female;  some  heads  of  children,  young  girls;  and 
former  busts , such  as  those  of  Voltaire,  La  Fayette  and  Franklin. 

Of  course  this  is  not  definitive,  as  the  La  Fayette  was  not  the 
“former  bust,”  but  a new  one. 

1 Hamilton’s  Monroe,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  339. 

2 Letter  from  Jefferson,  April  30,  1802,  in  possession  of  General  Henry  A.  Dupont, 
Winterthur,  Del. 


io8 


Life  and  Works  of 


Montaiglon  and  Duplessis,  in  writing  of  Houdon’s  bust  of 
Franklin,  say  (p.  241)  : 

Houdon  could  not  fail  to  feel  the  attraction  that  seemed  to  draw  all 
France  towards  this  Sage  and  Savant  from  another  hemisphere,  and  he 
must  have  been  happy  in  reproducing  the  venerable  head  of  this  old  man, 
beautiful  from  its  intelligence  and  honesty.  He  succeeded  in  it  perfectly, 
and  the  bust  of  him  that  he  has  left  to  us  is  one  of  his  finest  and  most 
simple.  This  bust  is  the  man  himself,  reflective,  calm,  benevolent,  smil- 
ing, and  he  makes  us  understand  the  man  as  clearly  as  his  writings  do. 
It  had  great  success,  and  for  an  inscription  Turgot  penned  the  following 
lines:  “ Eripuit  ccelo  fulmen  sceptrumque  tyrannis”1 

But  the  last  and  most  interesting  word  on  the  subject,  written  in 
his  seventieth  year,  comes  from  the  foremost  of  living  sculptors, 
Auguste  Rodin,  who  is  a great  admirer  of  Houdon,  and  deserves 
special  consideration  coming  from  such  a source.  Rodin,  wishing 
to  show  that  the  portrait-busts  by  Houdon  are  like  written  memoirs 
of  their  subjects,  and  that  “period,  race,  profession,  personal  char- 
acter, all  is  there  indicated,”  wrote  this  curious  analysis  of  the  bust 
of  Franklin: 

A heavy  appearance,  full  hanging  cheeks;  there  is  the  former  work- 
man. Long  apostolic  hair,  a beneficent  good-will;  here  is  the  popular 
moralizer,  Poor-man  Richard.  A large  obstinate  forehead,  bent  for- 
ward; evidence  of  Franklin’s  determination,  of  which  proof  lies  in  his 
self-instruction,  self-support,  becoming  an  eminent  Savant  and  further 
succeeding  in  emancipating  his  country.  Astuteness  in  the  eyes  and  at  the 

1 These  lines  were  first  used  on  a terra-cotta  medallion  of  Franklin  by  Nini,  1778. 
Vide  “McClure’s  Magazine,”  March,  1897,  P*  453* 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  109 

corners  of  the  mouth.  Houdon  was  not  deceived  by  the  general  massive- 
ness, but  he  detected  the  hard  common-sense  of  the  successful  calculator 
amassing  a fortune,  the  wary  diplomat  who  compassed  the  secrets  of 
English  diplomacy.  Behold,  all  alive,  one  of  the  ancestors  of  modern 
America ! 1 

The  late  Laurence  Hutton2  made  some  very  wild  statements  in 
regard  to  Houdon’s  bust  of  Franklin  and  a mask  of  his  face  that  he 
claimed  to  have.  These  were  mere  assumptions,  wholly  unsup- 
ported by  any  authority,  as  Mr.  Hutton  applied  to  me  for  informa- 
tion on  the  subject,  and  when  I could  not  give  him  what  he  wanted, 
he  applied  to  a great-granddaughter  of  Franklin,3  who  in  turn 
applied  to  me,  for  him,  with  necessarily  like  result.  This  is  merely 
noted  in  closing,  as  a warning  to  the  wary.4 


1 “La  Liberte,”  Paris,  August  12,  1910. 

2 “Portraits  in  Plaster,”  p.  241. 

3 Miss  Agnes  Irwin,  late  Dean  of  Radcliffe  College. 

4 The  following  note  in  Scharf  and  Westcott’s  “History  of  Philadelphia,”  Vol.  II,  p. 
1066,  I have  been  unable  to  verify:  “The  original  terra-cotta  models  of  the  busts  of 
Washington  and  Franklin,  made  by  Houdon  in  Philadelphia,  were  taken  to  Paris.  They 
were  in  the  possession  of  M.  Walfredin,  nephew  of  Diderot,  in  1869-70.  After  his 
death  they  were  sold  to  M.  de  Montbrison.”  Busts  of  Washington  and  of  Franklin 
that  belonged  to  M.  Walferdin  were  bequeathed  by  him  to  the  Louvre,  where  they  now 
are.  Whether  he  had  others,  of  course  not  made  in  Philadelphia,  that  were  sold  after 
his  death,  I have  been  unable  to  ascertain. 


CHAPTER  VI 

1779 

MOLIERE— ROUSSEAU— MIRABEAU—  DEATH-MASKS  OF  ROUSSEAU 

AND  MIRABEAU 

HE  bust  of  Moliere,  it  may  be  remembered,  is  mentioned 
as  being  exhibited  in  Houdon’s  studio  when  visitors  were 
going  there  to  see  the  bust  of  Voltaire.  The  “Secret  Me- 
moirs,” under  date  of  April  19,  1778,  say:  “There  has  been  on  view 
for  some  time  in  M.  Houdon’s  studio  a bust  of  Moliere,  executed 
for  the  foyer  of  the  Comedie-Frangaise.  It  is  very  fine.”  As  the 
paragraph  just  quoted  shows,  it  was  executed  on  an  order  from  the 
members  of  the  Comedie,  whose  plan  originally  had  been  to  have 
a statue  made  of  the  great  dramatist.  The  proceeds  of  a perform- 
ance on  the  centenary  of  Moliere’s  death,  however,  falling  below 
the  sum  that  had  been  expected,  the  project  for  this  statue  neces- 
sarily underwent  a modification,  and  on  motion  of  Lekain  a bust 
was  decided  on.1 

Here  Houdon’s  task  was  a very  different  one  from  any  he  had 
before  attempted : not  the  faithful  portrayal  of  a living  model,  in 

1 M.  Taschereau,  “Vie  de  Moliere,”  notes. 


no 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  m 

which  branch  of  art  he  had  become  supreme,  but  the  creation  from 
accepted  portraits  of  an  idealized  resemblance.  It  was  natural, 
from  the  fame  and  character  of  Moliere,  to  anticipate  that  public 
expectation  would  not  be  satisfied  with  a mere  rendition  of  the 
poet’s  general  aspect,  but  that  the  hidden  fires  of  his  genius  should 
in  some  way  be  brought  out  and  typified  in  the  bust. 

This  task  Houdon  accomplished  with  great  eclat,  artists  and  pub- 
lic alike  joining  in  praising  his  creation.  “The  genius  for  observa- 
tion of  this  great  man  [Moliere]  is  expressed  with  a force,  a noble- 
ness, that  no  painter  has  ever  approached.  His  brow  carries  an 
expression  of  profound  meditation.  His  glance  (M.  Houdon  is 
perhaps  the  first  sculptor  who  has  known  how  to  model  eyes)  —his 
glance  dives  deep  into  the  heart,”  writes  Baron  Grimm.1  In  fact, 
among  French  writers  we  find  this  work  placed  upon  a very  high 
plane,  indeed,  certain  critics  going  so  far  as  to  rank  it  as  “one  of  the 
finest  inspirations  in  iconic  statuary.”2 

A description  of  the  bust  is  as  follows:  “The  head  of  the  noble 
thinker,  framed  in  its  long,  floating  hair,  the  neck  bared  and  a scarf 
loosely  knotted  about  it,  is  carried  forward  with  an  expression  of 
suppressed  ardor  and  reflection.  The  poet  no  longer  feels  his  iden- 
tity, for  he  sees,  he  listens  to  his  genius  as  it  speaks  to  him;  the  eye 
is  observant,  the  nostrils  are  dilated  from  the  fullness  of  thought 
within;  the  mouth,  fine  and  elegant,  is  slightly  open,  but  no  word 

1 Grimm-Diderot  Correspondance,  Vol.  XII  (1880),  p.  104. 

2 Delerot  and  Legrelle,  p.  115. 


I 12 


Life  and  Works  of 


escapes  it;  and  the  whole  head,  as  deeply  poetical  as  it  is  human, 
sparkles  with  the  powerful  and  pure  reflection  of  a deep  inspi- 
ration.”1 

This  bust,  which  in  1779  was  merely  of  plaster,  was  promptly 
executed  in  marble,  and  a considerable  number  of  repetitions  gave 
it  wide  currency.  The  Comedie-Frangaise  must  undoubtedly  have 
obtained  the  first,  the  one  now  in  its  collection  and  prominently 
placed  in  the  foyer  of  the  theatre.  As  far  back  as  1783  we  find 
traces  of  a slight  controversy  as  to  the  prominent  place  given  this 
bust  of  Moliere.  The  “Secret  Memoirs”2  say,  speaking  of  some 
changes  made  in  the  interior  of  the  Comedie:  “It  is  a pity  that  the 
mantelpiece  appears  somewhat  mean  for  its  surroundings.  Busts 
of  different  French  dramatic  authors  ornament  and  enrich  it;  but  it 
is  not  understood  why  the  Comedians,  arrogating  the  right  to  de- 
cide the  leadership  among  themselves,  have  judged  it  appropriate 
to  place  Moliere  [the  one  by  Houdon]  much  higher  than  the  rest, 
and  by  itself,  as  if  dominating  all  the  others.”  It  seems  that  Pre- 
ville,  a member  of  the  Comedie  and  a very  celebrated  actor,  had 
been  one  of  the  chief  instigators  in  the  movement.  Voltaire’s  statue 
was  in  the  same  hallway,  and  Preville  had  epigrammatically  an- 
nounced “that  it  was  not  proper  to  present  a tragic  author  full 
length  where  the  Father  of  Comedy  was  shown  only  in  a bust.”  All 

1 Montaiglon  and  Duplessis,  p.  244. 

2 Vol.  XXII,  pp.  360,  361.  The  terra-cotta  of  Moliere’s  bust  belonged  to  Mme.  Paul 
Lacroix;  it  figured  at  the  Salon  of  1779.  Grimm-Diderot  Correspondance  (1880),  Vol. 
XII,  p.  103,  n. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  113 

this,  of  course,  has  been  changed  long  since,  and  Voltaire’s  image 
holds  undisputed  sway  as  the  central  and  dominating  figure  in  the 
more  modern  foyer. 

Another  replica  of  the  Moliere  bust  found  its  way  to  the  Acade- 
mic Frangaise.  D’Alembert  had  engraved  on  this  one  a celebrated 
inscription;  it  is  a witty  line  of  Saurin’s:  “Nothing  is  wanting  to 
his  fame;  he  was  lacking  for  ours”— a graceful  tribute  to  Moliere’s 
memory,  and  a palpable  allusion  to  his  not  having  been  admitted  a 
member  of  the  Academy  in  his  lifetime. 

A third  bust  is  said  to  have  been  placed  on  the  house  in  which 
Moliere  was  born  in  Paris,  at  No.  3 Rue  de  la  Tonnellerie,  marked 
by  an  inscription:  “J.  B.  Poquelin  de  Moliere  was  born  in  this 
house  the  15th  of  January,  1620.”  This  was  at  a time  before  the 
Revolution,  when  the  premises  were  occupied  by  an  old-clothes 
dealer  who  possessed  a great  veneration  for  the  memory  of  the 
sublime  Poquelin.  A few  years  afterward,  however,  another  old- 
clothes  broker  succeeded  the  one  just  mentioned.  He  undertook  to 
repaint  the  front  of  his  shop,  and  deemed  it  needful  to  include  Mo- 
liere’s bust  in  this  operation.  So  this  masterpiece  of  Houdon’s  was 
daubed  over  with  black  paint  and  the  insignia,  “At  the  sign  of  the 
Black  Head,”  set  up  over  it! 

This  was  a little  too  much,  even  in  Revolutionary  times,  and  the 
police  authorities  ordered  the  illiterate  broker  to  restore  matters  to 
their  original  state.  Later,  the  house  having  been  sold  and  the 
fagade  of  it  reconstructed,  another  bust  of  Moliere,  sculptured  by 


n4  Life  and  Works  of 

Coyzevox,  was  put  in  the  place  of  the  one  by  Houdon  so  shamefully 
disfigured.1 

The  Ducal  Museum  at  Gotha  possesses  a fine  gypsum  facsimile 
of  the  marble  bust  of  Moliere  in  the  foyer  of  the  Comedie. 

Following  hard  upon  the  death  of  Voltaire  in  Paris  came  the 
news  of  Rousseau’s  demise  at  Ermenonville.2  He  was  staying  in 
the  house  of  M.  de  Girardin  when  the  end  came.  Houdon,  with 
that  ardor  which  distinguished  him  in  his  art,  hastened  to  Ermenon- 
ville. La  Harpe,  in  his  Correspondance,3  says:  “The  sculptor 
Houdon  has  gone  at  once  to  take  a model  of  Rousseau  at  Ermenon- 
ville, which  leads  one  to  think  that  death  has  not  disfigured  him.” 
There  was  much  divergence  of  opinion  as  to  the  manner  of  Rous- 
seau’s death,  but  it  is  not  our  purpose  to  enter  largely  into  the  dis- 
cussion of  that  question.  A good  many  years  after  the  event  a friend 
of  Rousseau’s,  Olivier  Corancez,  in  writing  of  him,  made  the  state- 
ment that  “M.  Girardin,  Mme.  Rousseau  and  M.  Houdon , sculp- 
tor, all  bear  testimony  to  a hole  in  the  forehead,  caused  by  a fall  in 
the  garde-robe  [dressing-room].  This  hole  was  so  deep  that  M. 
Houdon  related  to  me  himself  having  had  difficulty  in  filling  up 
the  cavity.”  Later,  Houdon  formally  contradicted  this  assertion  in 
a letter  which  we  shall  reproduce.  The  letter  is  addressed  to  M. 

1 “Dictionnaire  de  la  France,”  Tome  III,  p.  205. 

2 According  to  Montaiglon  and  Duplessis,  the  news  was  received  July  3,  1778;  accord- 
ing to  Delerot  and  Legrelle,  July  4,  1778. 

3 Letter  89,  Vol.  XI,  p.  62. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  u5 

Petitain,  then  engaged  on  an  edition  of  Rousseau,1  and  runs  as  fol- 
lows: 

8 March,  1819. 

Sir: 

I have  delayed  writing  for  the  reason  that  I wished  to  look  up  and 
re-examine  afresh  the  mask  of  J.  J.  Rousseau  that  I took  of  him  imme- 
diately following  his  decease.  As  a result  of  this  fresh  examination,  I 
find  that  the  contusion  showing  in  the  forehead  is  evidently  the  result  of 
a severe  blow,  not  producing  the  effect  of  a hole.  I can  readily  believe 
that  the  skin  was  injured;  nevertheless,  one  can  perfectly  trace  the  unin- 
terrupted lines  of  wrinkles  where  the  contusion  shows. 

As  to  the  work  of  M.  Corancez,  I had  no  knowledge  of  it,  and  as  to 
the  view  he  attributes  to  me,  I never  held  it,  nor  could  I have  held  it.  To 
any  one  familiar  with  such  matters,  it  will  be  clear  that  it  is  a physical 
impossibility  I should  have  difficulty  in  filling  up  a space  occasioned  by 
a cavity. 

If  these  details  should  avail  you,  Sir,  you  are  at  liberty  to  make  such 
use  of  them  as  you  may  desire. 

I have  the  honor,  etc., 

Houdon. 

At  a recent  period,  in  order  to  set  at  rest  a lingering  doubt 
whether  Rousseau  had  really  been  buried  in  the  Pantheon,  a com- 
mission was  appointed  by  the  French  government  to  determine  the 
fact.  Acting  under  the  authority  conferred,  this  commission  made 
an  investigation,  and  in  the  account  given  in  the  newspapers  of  the 
day  we  find  as  follows : 

1 Rousseau’s  Works,  edited  by  M.  Louis  Germain  Petitain.  Paris,  1819.  Appendix 
to  the  Confessions,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  178,  179. 


Life  and  Works  of 


ii  6 

“The  Rousseau  vault  was  next  entered.  The  wooden  sarcoph- 
agus was  raised  in  the  same  manner  as  that  of  Voltaire.  Within 
was  a great  case  of  lead,  and  upon  it  were  these  words : 

“Ci-git  Rousseau 
Anno  1778” 

Then  follows  a description  of  the  body  as  it  appeared  within,  and, 
to  quote  again,  “M.  Berthelot  took  the  skull  in  his  hands.  . . . But 
what  was  most  important  was  that  the  skull  bore  no  trace  of  frac- 
ture or  perforation,  thus  disproving  the  long-believed  story  that 
Rousseau  committed  suicide  by  blowing  out  his  brains  with  a 
pistol.” 

Montaiglon  and  Duplessis  say,  quoting  Querard1  in  support  of 
the  statement,  that  the  original  mould  referred  to  in  Houdon’s  let- 
ter, just  given,  as  having  been  taken  by  the  sculptor  from  the  dead 
man’s  face,  “was  purchased  for  1800  francs  in  1822  by  M.  Gossuin, 
J r.”  But  this  conflicts  with  the  entry  in  the  Sale  Catalogue  of  Hou- 
don’s effects  in  1828,  six  years  later,  as  follows: 

Plaster  mask  moulded  on  the  face  of  J.  J.  Rousseau  a few  hours 
after  his  death.  This  precious  impression,  which  is  unique,  was  made  by 
M.  Houdon,  on  the  invitation  of  the  late  Count  de  Girardin,  at  whose 
house  the  Philosopher  died,  on  the  3d  of  July,  1778. 

The  terra-cotta  bust  exhibited  at  the  Salon  of  1779  was  cata- 
logued as  belonging  to  the  Marquis  de  Girardin.  It  was  very 


1 “France  Litteraire,”  VIII,  230. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  n7 

highly  praised  as  a likeness  and  a work  of  art.  The  “Memoires 
Secrets”  of  that  year  say  of  it:  “What  fire  in  this  last  portrait,  whose 
piercing  glance  seems  to  dive  into  the  innermost  recesses  of  the 
human  heart!  From  a certain  point  of  view,  the  illusion  is  so  com- 
plete and  the  glance  of  the  eye  so  direct  and  lively,  that  the  bust 
seems  animated,  and  one  feels  like  avoiding  its  gaze.” 

This  is  compared  by  one  writer  with  the  description  of  Rousseau 
in  life,  given  by  Mme.  de  Genlis  in  her  “Memoirs”:  “He  had 
small,  deep-sunken  eyes,  but  most  piercing , and  which  seemed  to 
penetrate  and  divine  the  inmost  thought  of  the  one  he  was  address- 
ing; it  seemed  to  me  that  he  would  have  discovered  at  once  a false- 
hood or  a prevarication.”1 

Houdon  complained  very  bitterly  of  the  pirating  of  his  likeness 
made  of  Rousseau,  for  it  was  endlessly  reproduced.  “The  likeness 
of  J.  J.  Rousseau,”  he  asserted  with  much  warmth,  “is  my  prop- 
erty.” He  indignantly  protested  against  “robberies  which  had  en- 
riched the  thieves”  and  had  proven  as  detrimental  to  his  fame  as 
injurious  to  his  pocket.  As  one  writer  says,  “This  audacious  coun- 
terfeiting and  the  multiplicity  of  the  repetitions,  so  sought  after  in 
spite  of  their  imperfections  and  the  formal  disavowal  of  the  author 
himself,  are,  after  all,  an  indirect  panegyric  upon  Houdon’s  celeb- 
rity.”1 

The  best  known  busts  now  extant  are  the  one  at  the  Louvre 

1 “Memoirs  of  Mme.  de  Genlis,”  Vol.  II,  pp.  8,  9. 

2 Delerot  and  Legrelle,  p.  117. 


1 1 8 


Life  and  Works  of 


(bronze),  the  one  at  the  Royal  Library  at  Versailles  (terra-cotta), 
and  the  one  at  the  Museum  in  Gotha  (gypsum  bronzed),  signed 
“Houdon,  1778.”  There  seems  also  to  have  been  a very  celebrated 
one  in  the  possession  of  a M.  Duriez,  Sr.,  who  obtained  it  from  a 
descendant  of  M.  Le  Grand  de  Serant,  himself  an  artist  and  friend 
of  Houdon’s,  to  whom  Houdon  had  presented  it. 

The  bronze  of  the  Louvre  is  not  nearly  so  forceful  a likeness  as 
the  gypsum  bust  at  Gotha,  which  is  different  in  many  respects.  It 
has  the  shoulders  draped  a V antique,  and  a circlet  or  ribbon  bound 
about  the  head,  inclosing  the  hair.  It  is  a smiling  head  with  a 
somewhat  soft  expression,  and  lacks  the  accent  of  verisimilitude 
conveyed  in  the  Gotha  bust.  Dierks  makes  an  allusion  to  the  “mar- 
ble original,  the  whereabouts  of  which  are  now  unknown”;1  but 
quotes  no  authority  for  a “marble  original.”  The  bust  exhibited  in 
the  Salon  of  1779  is  catalogued  (No.  220 ) as  being  of  “terra- 
cotta.” In  the  Stephen  Girard  collection  at  Girard  College,  Phila- 
delphia, is  a marble  bust  of  Rousseau  in  precisely  the  same  style  as 
the  Gotha  gypsum  bust.2  The  description  of  the  Duriez  bust,  given 
in  Montaiglon  and  Duplessis,  applies  equally  to  this  one.  “Here  is 
the  man  himself  in  all  truthfulness,  and  without  false  arrangement. 
His  head  is  slightly  bowed  and  looking  somewhat  to  the  left;  the 
hair  is  cut  short;  and  the  bust  only  includes  the  neck,  which  is  un- 
covered.” It  would  be  interesting  to  learn  the  history  of  the  Girard 

1 Houdon’s  “Leben  und  Werke,”  p.  45.  Dr.  Hermann  Dierks,  Gotha,  1887. 

2 Can  this  be  the  “marble  original”  of  Dierks? 


MCDUJS  S1EAHT 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  n9 

bust;  thus  far,  our  efforts  to  ascertain  something  about  it  and  its 
companion,  a marble  bust  of  Voltaire  a 1’ antique,  have  not  met  with 
success.1  Houdon  made  a third  bust  of  Rousseau  with  full  wig, 
and  in  the  costume  of  the  period,  as  a companion  to  a similarly  ar- 
ranged one  of  Voltaire.  A pair  of  these  belonged  to  the  Societe  des 
Amis  de  PInstruction  of  Geneva,  and  are  now  in  the  Metropolitan 
Museum  of  Art,  New  York.  It  is  the  commonly  known  bust  of 
Rousseau  by  Houdon,  and  in  many  respects  the  most  characteristic. 

Houdon’s  name  is  also  connected  with  a once  proposed  statue  to 
Rousseau.  In  the  enthusiasm  of  the  Revolutionary  Convention  of 
1790,  it  was  decreed  that  a statue  to  Rousseau  should  be  erected 
with  the  inscription,  “From  the  free  French  Nation  to  J.  J.  Rous- 
seau.n 

The  Commune  of  Arts,  somewhat  jealous  of  established  reputa- 
tions, and  especially  of  those  distinguished  by  membership  in  the 
Academy,  asked  that  it  be  submitted  to  competition.  The  com- 
mittee to  whom  this  was  referred,  through  its  president,  Camus, 
addressed  a letter  to  the  Academy  stating  that  a decree  had  been 
passed  to  put  the  statue  in  competition,  and  asking  the  Academy 
for  its  advice.  On  receipt  of  this  letter,  the  Academy  of  Painting 
called  a special  meeting,  held  on  April  16,  1791. 2 Some  members, 
among  whom  were  Moreau,  Boizot  and  Vincent,  maintained  that 

1 In  the  copy  of  the  inventory  of  Stephen  Girard’s  personal  estate,  made  out  in  May, 
1839,  are  catalogued,  “One  marble  bust,  Voltaire;  one  ditto,  Rousseau;  one  ditto,  Napo- 
leon; and  two  marble  ornaments,  all  valued  at  $20.” 

2 MSS.  of  the  old  Academy  Records. 


120 


Life  and  Works  of 


under  the  circumstances  there  should  be  no  question  of  a choice  by 
competition ; that  Houdon,  possessing  the  only  mask  moulded,  and 
having  made  the  most  lifelike  busts  of  Rousseau,  would  assure  the 
happy  execution  of  the  work,  which,  if  done  by  another,  would 
have  value  only  if  drawn  from  the  proofs  and  documents  in  Hou- 
don’s  possession. 

But  in  spite  of  these  special  reasons  and  the  support  of  the  acade- 
micians named,  besides  the  excellent  argument  made  by  Houdon 
as  to  the  drawbacks  in  general  of  competition,1  they  had  little 
weight  with  the  larger  number.  At  a moment  when  the  Academy 
was  already  being  attacked,  the  honor  of  being  consulted  had  been 
paid  it.  What  other  answer  could  it  make  but  one  conformable  to 
the  wish  expressed  by  the  committee,  and  thus  avoid  the  risk  of 
rousing  fresh  hatred?  Commissioners  were  appointed,  ten  in  num- 
ber, and  on  the  23d  of  April  rules  for  the  competition  were  drawn 
up  and  sent  to  M.  Camus  in  the  name  of  the  Academy.  The  mod- 
els were  to  be  sixteen  inches  in  height.  Houdon,  in  spite  of  his  own 
strong  disinclination  to  compete,  at  the  solicitation  of  his  friends 
made  a model  also.  At  what  time  the  competition  was  judged,  and 
the  result  of  it,  do  not  seem  to  be  ascertainable,  but  what  is  certain 
is  that  a year  later,  without  our  knowing  whether  Houdon  had 
been  selected  as  a result  of  the  competition  or  chosen  outside  of  it, 
the  Minister  of  the  Interior  communicates  to  the  Session  of  May 
6,  1792 :2  “That,  agreeably  to  the  decree  which  votes  a monument 

2 “Moniteur”  of  Monday,  May  7,  1792. 


1 See  Appendix  “C.” 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  121 

to  the  memory  of  Jean  Jacques  Rousseau,  arrangements  have  been 
made  with  M.  Houdon,  and  that  this  celebrated  artist  has  com- 
pleted a model  which  he  asks  permission  to  exhibit  in  a chamber  of 
the  Legislative  Assembly.” 

The  letter  here  given,  from  the  original  in  possession  of  Mr. 
Hart,  evidently  has  reference  to  this  very  model,  and  is  interesting 
on  that  account. 


Paris,  April  1 1,  1792. 

Mr.  President: 

I am  in  receipt  of  the  letter  addressed  to  me  by  yourself  and  the  gen- 
tlemen composing  the  Department,  on  the  7th  of  this  month;  I have  not 
ceased  occupying  myself  with  the  monumental  statue  of  J.  J.  Rousseau; 
not  only  have  I corrected  my  first  model  but  I have  constructed  another 
one  which  I submit  to  your  enlightened  judgment;  it  is  designed  for  being 
placed  against  one  of  the  four  pillars  in  the  Rotunda  of  the  Pantheon, 
on  the  right,  a spot  which  appeared  the  most  appropriate  one  to  M. 
Quatremere  Quincy  and  to  myself.  This  site  necessitates  a monument  of 
large  size.  The  size  of  the  one  I have  the  honor  to  submit  a model  of  is, 
from  the  base,  between  20  and  25  feet;  thus  I am  in  hopes  it  will  pro- 
duce a proper  effect,  although  a single  figure  and  unaccompanied  by  any 
allegorical  design,  which  frequently  detracts  from  the  central  figure.  I 
send  with  this  a detailed  statement  of  what  its  cost  may  be,  either  in 
marble  or  in  bronze.  I am  highly  desirous  that,  in  spite  of  this  differ- 
ence in  cost,  the  decision  should  be  in  favor  of  bronze  as  being  more 
durable  and  better  adapted  to  the  character  of  the  monument.  I have 
endeavored  to  figure  as  low  as  possible,  by  only  including  the  actual  pay- 
ments to  be  made.  As  to  my  own  fees,  the  glory  of  being  chosen  to  exe- 
cute the  first  monument  voted  by  the  free  French  nation  must  suffice.  If, 
from  the  close  economy  now  required  in  all  disbursements,  sufficient 


122 


Life  and  Works  of 


should  be  found  to  allow  them,  as  father  of  a family  my  duty  would  be 
not  to  refuse,  but  I do  not  claim  them;  I only  desire  to  gain  the  approba- 
tion and  regard  which  have  been  the  incentives  to  the  work  of  my  entire 
life. 

I have  the  honor  to  be,  with  respect,  Mr.  President, 

Your  very  humble  and  very  obedient  servant, 

Houdon. 

I am  not  including  the  expenses  of  transportation  from  my  studio  to 
the  Pantheon,  nor  the  placing  [of  the  statue],  because  it  will  be  much 
cheaper,  I think,  for  the  Department  to  employ  its  own  workmen  en- 
gaged about  the  premises. 

Unfortunately,  this  is  as  far  as  the  project  ever  advanced.  In  the 
session  of  the  Convention  on  September  i,  1795,  the  deputy  Boissy 
inquired  why  Rousseau  was  still  without  a statue,1  but  his  question 
received  no  satisfactory  answer. 

It  is  perhaps  regrettable  that  Houdon  did  not  have  the  oppor- 
tunity of  fulfilling  his  purpose.  He  was  still  possessed  of  all  his 
powers,  being  but  little  over  fifty  years  of  age,  and  doubtless  such  a 
subject  appealed  to  him  very  strongly.  On  the  other  hand,  he  had 
not  had  the  opportunity  to  study  his  model  as  either  in  the  case  of 
Voltaire  or  of  Washington,  and  while  a highly  creditable  produc- 
tion would  no  doubt  have  been  forthcoming,  it  is  hardly  suppos- 
able,  as  some  writers  suggest,  that  a rival  for  the  fame  of  his  mas- 
terpiece at  the  Comedie-Frangaise  would  have  been  the  result. 

This  account  of  the  proposed  statue  to  Rousseau  brings  us  chron- 

1 “Moniteur,”  note  in  Montaiglon  and  Duplessis,  p.  340. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  123 

ologically  to  Houdon’s  bust  of  Mirabeau,  exhibited  in  1791.  This 
was  again  to  involve  our  sculptor  in  the  contrarieties  of  a compe- 
tition. Mirabeau  expired  on  the  2d  of  April,  1791.  Immediately 
following  his  decease,  the  Abbe  Espagnac  sought  out  Houdon  to 
prevail  on  him  to  take  a death-mask  of  the  noted  orator,  to  which 
desire  Houdon  at  once  yielded.  The  day  following,  Sunday,  Espa- 
gnac communicated  what  he  had  done  the  day  before  to  a society 
known  as  the  “Friends  of  the  Constitution,”  of  which  Mirabeau 
had  been  a member,  and  proposed  the  ordering  of  a bust.  He  very 
generously  offered  to  subscribe  fifty  louis  (1000  francs)  toward  its 
cost.  The  motion  having  been  carried,  the  Abbe  ascertained  the 
price  Houdon  asked,  which  discloses  to  us  what  he  was  generally 
paid;  viz.,  3000  francs  ($600)  for  a marble  bust,  and  4000  francs 
($800)  for  one  in  bronze. 

One  account  states  that,  the  model  having  been  completed,  it  was 
deemed  preferable  to  submit  the  bust  to  competition  while  a de- 
cision was  pending  as  to  the  material  to  be  used,  and  recourse  was 
again  had  to  the  Academy  for  its  advice,  which  again  felt  con- 
strained to  give  in  its  adhesion  to  the  project.  Another  version  is 
that  Houdon  executed  the  bust,  which  satisfied  the  committee,  and 
then  an  abrupt  and  inconceivable  retraction  by  the  committee  fol- 
lowed, by  which  it  was  fixed  for  competition.  Houdon,  they  stated, 
was  an  academician,  and  it  was  time  to  put  an  end  to  unjust  distinc- 
tions and  to  extend  to  the  jealous  mediocrity  of  artists  without 
special  gifts  the  benefits  of  equality.  This  might  be  all  very  well 


124  Jean  Antoine  Houdon 

for  the  new  found  disciples  of  “Liberte,  Egalite  et  Fraternite,”  but 
it  was  certainly  very  shabby  treatment  for  an  artist  of  Houdon’s 
fame  and  character.  A further  pretext  advanced,  that  the  bust  was 
not  a good  likeness,  astonishes  naturally,  and  yet  we  are  not  enthu- 
siastic over  the  Mirabeau  bust,  and  think  with  Louis  Gonze  that  it 
does  not  fulfil  one’s  expectations. 

After  this  unpleasant  experience,  Houdon  published  the  reflec- 
tions suggested  by  it  as  well  as  by  the  Rousseau  incident  of  similar 
character,  embodying  at  the  same  time  his  views  on  competitions 
generally,1  and  their  influence  on  art.  They  have  been  thought  well 
worthy  of  preservation,  as  being  applicable  at  the  present  day. 


1 Given  in  Appendix  “D.” 


CHAPTER  VII 

1780 


BUST  OF  JOHN  PAUL  JONES-THE  QUESTION  OF  THE  IDENTIFICATION 
OF  HIS  REMAINS  BY  HOUDON’S  BUST  CONSIDERED 

QI/tti  [7^0  the  Salon  of  1781  Houdon  made  a grand  contribution 
few  of  thirteen  pieces,  including  his  two  famous  life-size 

statues,  in  marble,  of  the  Marshal  de  Tourville,  now  in 
the  Museum  at  Versailles,  and  of  Voltaire,  “qui  devait  etre  placee 
a l’Academie-Frangaise  mais  destinee  depuis  a decorer  la  nouvelle 
salle  de  comedie,  rue  de  Conde.”  But  the  item  of  greatest  interest 
to  us  among  those  exhibited  is  entered,  “261.  Paul  Jones.  Buste 
platre  teinte,  couleur  de  terre-cuite.”  This  bust  of  John  Paul  Jones 
was  modeled  by  Houdon  in  the  spring  of  1780  and  so  dated  under 
his  signature,  and  has  recently  attained  great  significance  and  im- 
portance from  the  prominent  place  given  to  it  in  the  identification 
of  the  remains,  disinterred  in  Paris,  in  April,  1905,  as  those  of  the 
dauntless  commander  of  the  B onhomme-Richar d . This  fact  makes 
this  bust  of  the  first  consequence  and  will  lead  us  into  an  inquiry  as 
to  the  verification  of  the  find. 

Paul  Jones  was  much  admired  in  France  even  before  his  great 
sea-fight.  Nearly  three  weeks  before  this  memorable  event,  Metra 


25 


126 


Life  and  Works  of 


writes,1  “The  famous  Paul  Jones  is  awaited  with  impatience.  The 
Queen  has  said,  in  the  last  few  days,  that  she  wished  herself  to  at- 
tach a waving  plume  to  his  hat.  This  was  thought  charming,  and 
at  once  orders  were  given  to  the  court  milliner,  Mile.  Bertin,  for 
hats  a la  Paul  Jones.”  But  it  seems  it  was  six  months  before  Marie 
Antoinette’s  wish  could  be  gratified.  Baron  Grimm  writes  in  May, 
1780, 2 “The  intrepid  Paul  Jones  has  been  here  [in  Paris]  several 
weeks.  The  Lodge  of  the  Nine  Sisters,  of  which  he  is  a member, 
engaged  M.  Houdon  to  make  his  bust.  This  portrait  is  another 
masterpiece  worthy  of  the  chisel  which  seems  destined  to  consecrate 
to  immortality  illustrious  men  in  every  walk  of  life.”  It  is  to  the 
sittings  for  this  bust  that  Jones  alludes  in  his  letter  addressed  to  the 
Comtesse  de  la  Vendahl,  June  7,  1780,  “I  beseech  you  to  accept  the 
within  lock.  I am  sorry  that  it  is  now  eighteen  inches  shorter  than 
it  was  three  months  ago.  Before  I had  the  honour  to  see  you  I 
wished  to  comply  with  the  invitation  of  my  lodge.”* 

At  this  time  Paul  Jones  was  in  his  thirty-third  year  and  the  lau- 
rels he  had  won  in  his  action  with  the  Serapis  were  still  green.  He 
was  received  everywhere  enthusiastically  and  with  marks  of  atten- 

1 “Correspondance  Secrete,”  September  5,  1779,  Vol.  VIII,  p.  288. 

2 “Correspondance  Litteraire  de  Grimm  et  Diderot,”  Paris,  1880,  Vol.  XII,  p.  394. 

3 Jones  MS.  Correspondence,  Library  of  Congress,  Washington,  D.  C.  In  the 
Calendar  of  John  Paul  Jones  Manuscripts  in  the  Library  of  Congress,  Washington, 
D.  C.,  1903,  p.  152,  this  last  passage  is  epitomized,  “hopes  to  accept  the  invitation  of 
his  lodge  to  return  to  France Not  only  does  the  letter  not  say  this,  but  “the  invitation 
of  my  lodge”  was,  clearly,  to  sit  for  his  bust,  for  which  purpose  he  had  sacrificed  the 
length  of  his  queue,  and  not  “to  return  to  France.”  He  was  writing  of  what  had 
happened,  not  of  what  was  to  happen. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  127 

tion.  At  the  opera,  to  which  he  was  invited,  a wreath  was  arranged 
over  the  seat  he  was  to  occupy,  which,  at  an  appropriate  moment, 
should  descend  upon  his  brow;  but,  forewarned  of  this  bit  of  the- 
atricalism,  he  begged  that  it  might  be  omitted.1  He  was  presented 
at  court,  given  a sword  by  the  King,  and  decorated  with  the  cross 
of  the  Institution  of  Military  Merit,  the  first  time  of  its  award  to 
any  one  not  a Frenchman.  Sartines,  the  French  Minister  of 
Marine,  wrote  from  Versailles  to  “Mr.  Hantenydon,”2  the  Presi- 
dent of  Congress,  proposing,  in  the  name  of  the  King,  to  present 
Jones  with  a sword  and  “to  decorate  this  brave  officer  with  the 
Cross  of  Military  Merit.”  At  the  same  time  he  advised  Jones  that 
the  decoration  had  been  forwarded  to  the  Minister  of  France  at 
Philadelphia,  the  Chevalier  de  la  Luzerne.  Jones  returned  to 
America,  reaching  Philadelphia,  where  Congress  was  in  session, 
on  February  17,  1781,  and  ten  days  later  Congress  expressed  its  ap- 
preciation at  the  approbation  of  his  Most  Christian  Majesty  of 
Jones’s  services,  “and  that  his  Majesty’s  offer  of  adorning  Captain 
Jones  with  the  Cross  of  Military  Merit  is  highly  agreeable  to  Con- 
gress.”3 In  consequence  of  this  action,  the  Chevalier  de  la  Luzerne 
gave  a fete,  on  March  21st,  to  the  members  of  Congress  and  other 
persons  of  consideration,  at  which  he  invested  Jones  with  the  Order 
of  Merit,  which  gave  him  the  title  of  Chevalier,  a title  which  he 


1 “Memoires  Secrets,”  May  18,  1780,  Vol.  XV,  p.  179. 

2 Samuel  Huntingdon. 

3 Journals  of  Congress,  Philadelphia,  1800,  Vol.  VII,  p.  32. 


128 


Life  and  Works  of 


ever  after  proudly  bore.  This  is  the  order  that  appears  on  the  lapel 
of  the  coat  in  Houdon’s  bust  of  Jones,  the  vain  little  sailor  having 
anticipated  the  favorable  action  of  Congress  by  requesting  his 
friend  Dr.  Bancroft,  from  L’Orient,  in  July  of  1780, 1 to  purchase 
for  him  “one  of  the  most  fashionable  Crosses  of  Merit  of  the  small 
size” ; as  the  real  cross  of  the  Institution  of  Military  Merit  had  been 
sent  to  the  Chevalier  de  la  Luzerne  at  Philadelphia,  and  this  is  how 
it  got  upon  the  bust  by  Houdon  when  it  did.  In  this  connection  it  is 
curious  to  note  that  among  Jones’s  effects  enumerated  in  the  inven- 
tory of  his  estate  were  “12  decorations”  which  it  is  said  were  sold.2 

All  of  the  unquestioned  portraits  of  Paul  Jones  are  of  the  exact 
period  of  the  Houdon  bust  of  him,  and  each  one  confirms  the  other 
by  its  resemblance  to  it.  These  are  the  miniature  by  the  Comtesse 
de  Bourbon  de  la  Vendahl,  the  medallion  by  Jean  Martin  Renaud, 
and  the  drawings  by  C.  J.  Notte  and  Jean  Michel  Moreau.  Of  the 
last  of  these,  Jones  wrote  to  Dr.  Bancroft,  September  23,  1780, 3 
wishing  him  to  give  to  Thevenard  and  to  de  la  Grandville  each 
“one  of  the  stamps  done  by  M.  Morau  (I  know  not  if  I spell  the 
name) . I mean  the  one  I sat  for  when  you  were  once  present.”  In 
writing  of  Houdon’s  bust  of  Jones,  James  Barnes,  in  his  study  of  the 
personal  appearance  of  Paul  Jones,4  says:  “The  character  and  the 
individuality  of  the  Commander  of  the  Bonhomme-Richard  are 

1 Jones  MS.  Correspondence,  Library  of  Congress,  Washington,  D.  C. 

2 “The  Century  Magazine”  for  October,  1905,  p.  933. 

3 Jones  MS.  Correspondence,  Library  of  Congress,  Washington,  D.  C. 

4 “Appleton’s  Magazine,”  June,  1906,  p.  107. 


IPATU1L  JOifES 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  129 

portrayed  in  so  wonderful  and  lifelike  a manner  that,  as  we  study 
it,  we  feel  a personal  contact  with  him.  Here  is  the  greatest  fight- 
ing face  that  has  ever  been  perpetuated  in  marble,  bronze  or  clay. 
Yet  the  determined,  bulldog  expression  is  relieved  by  the  sugges- 
tion of  strong  mentality  and  humor,  and,  strange  to  say,  the  features 
have,  when  taken  as  a whole,  an  effect  of  grace  and  beauty,  and 
more — they  have  the  charm  of  a remarkable  personality.” 

Jones,  it  would  appear,  was  perfectly  well  satisfied  with  the  bust 
that  Houdon  made  of  him,  as  he  presented  a copy  to  Jefferson,  for 
the  acceptance  of  which  Jones  writes  Jefferson  a letter  of  thanks 
from  Paris,  February  28,  1786, 1 in  which  he  says,  “It  has  been  re- 
marked by  professed  judges  that  it  does  no  discredit  to  the  talents 
of  Mr.  Houdon.”  This  bust  was  for  many  years  in  the  Athenaeum 
at  Boston,  but  has  disappeared.  The  following  year  Jones  sent  two 
busts  to  Philadelphia,  which  he  intended  to  present  in  person  to 
Washington  and  to  Robert  Morris  upon  his  return,  but  he  wrote  to 
Morris,2  “As  the  moment  of  my  return  to  America  continues  uncer- 
tain, I beg  you  will  now  accept  the  bust  as  a mark  of  my  affection.”3 

1 Sherburne’s  “Life  of  Jones,”  p.  270. 

2 Sands’s  “Life  of  Jones,”  p.  361. 

3 The  story  told  by  A.  C.  Buell,  in  his  fictitious  book  on  Paul  Jones,  Vol.  II,  page  15, 
relative  to  Louis  Philippe  seeing  this  bust  of  Jones,  when  he  visited  the  Morris  family  in 
the  United  States,  for  which  statement  he  gives  as  authority,  “Taylor’s  Louis  Philippe, 
the  Citizen  King,”  is  purely  imaginative.  There  is  no  such  book  as  the  one  Buell  cites. 
W.  Cooke  Taylor  did  publish  “Memoires  of  the  House  of  Orleans,”  in  which  there  is 
necessarily  much  about  “the  Citizen  King,”  but  Jones  is  not  mentioned  or  the  anecdote 
referred  to;  moreover,  it  was  Gouverneur  Morris  of  New  York,  and  not  Robert  Morris 
of  Philadelphia,  with  whose  family  Louis  Philippe  stayed  when  in  America. 


Life  and  Works  of 


130 

He  then  adds,  showing  that  the  illogical  and  ridiculous  duty  upon 
works  of  art  was  a thorn  in  the  side  then  as  it  is  now,  “Mr.  Nesbit 
writes  that  a duty  was  demanded  on  my  busts.  This,  I own,  sur- 
prises me.  They  are  not  merchandise;  and  I flatter  myself  that  my 
zeal  and  exertions  for  the  cause  of  America  will  not  be  requited 
with  such  a mark  of  dishonour.  I would  rather  hear  that  the  busts 
were  broken  to  pieces  than  consent  that  they  should  be  subject  to  a 
duty.”1 

Washington  showed  his  appreciation  of  the  gift  by  keeping 
Jones’s  bust  in  his  study  at  Mount  Vernon,  and  it  appears  in  the 
inventory  of  his  estate  appraised  at  twenty  dollars.  Upon  its  recep- 
tion, Washington  wrote  to  Jones  from  Philadelphia,  September  2, 
1787, 2 have  received  and  have  forwarded  to  my  house  the  Bust 

you  did  me  the  honor  to  present  me  with,  and  shall  place  it  with 
my  own.”  This  extreme  graciousness  fairly  overwhelmed  Jones, 
who  wrote  in  acknowledgment,3  “Your  determination  to  place  my 
Bust  with  your  own  confers  on  me  a greater  Honor  than  I ever  be- 
fore received;  an  Honor  which  I shall  ever  be  ambitious  to  merit.” 

Jones  had  evidently  by  this  time  acquired  the  bust-giving  habit, 
for  a year  later  he  writes  to  Jefferson4  from  “On  board  the  Woldi- 

1 In  a MS.  “List  of  Furniture  sold  by  R.  M.  to  Thomas  Fitzsimons  Esq  Phia  May 
18,  I797>”  in  the  autograph  of  Robert  Morris,  No.  115  is  “Head  of  Paul  Jones  in 
plaster  Paris.”  This  was  a friendly  sale  to  protect  the  articles  from  Morris’s  cred- 
itors. 

2 Washington’s  Letter-book,  Library  of  Congress,  Washington,  D.  C. 

3 Washington  Correspondence,  Library  of  Congress,  Washington,  D.  C. 

4 Sherburne’s  Jones,  pp.  302-304. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  131 

mir,  before  Cozacoff,”  under  date  of  “29  August-September  9, 
1788”:  “Some  of  my  friends  in  America  did  me  the  honor  to  ask 
for  my  bust.  I inclose  the  names  of  eight  gentlemen  to  each  of 
whom  I promised  to  send  one.  You  will  oblige  me  much  by  de- 
siring Mr.  Houdon  to  have  them  prepared  and  packed  up,  two 
and  two;  and  Mr.  Short,  to  whom  I present  my  respects,  will  take 
the  trouble  to  forward  them  by  good  opportunities,  via  Havre- 
de-Grace,  writing,  at  the  same  time,  a few  words  to  each  of  the 
gentlemen.  I shall  esteem  it  a particular  favor.” 

To  William  Short  he  wrote : 

September  15-26,  1788. 

List  of  Gentlemen  to  whom  Busts  are  to  be  sent:  General  St.  Clair 
and  Mr.  Ross  of  Philadelphia;  Mr.  John  Jay,  General  Irvine,  Mr. 
Secretary  Thomson  and  Colonel  Wadsworth  of  New  York;  Mr.  Maddi- 
son  and  Colonel  Carryton  of  Virginia. 

Admiral  Paul  Jones  presents  his  respectful  compliments  to  Mr.  Short 
and  begs  the  favor  of  him  to  forward  the  eight  busts  mentioned  in  the 
above  list  by  the  most  direct  opportunities  from  Havre-de-Grace  to 
America.  Mr.  Jefferson  is  wrote  to  on  this  subject,  and  Mr.  Houdon, 
who  prepares  the  busts,  will  also  have  them  carefully  [put]  up  in  four 
boxes.  The  Admiral  prays  Mr.  Short  to  be  so  obliging  as  to  write  a line 
or  two  to  each  of  the  gentlemen  for  whom  busts  are  destined. 

That  each  of  these  busts  reached  its  respective  destination  seems 
doubtful  in  view  of  Jones’s  like  inquiries  of  Thomson  and  of  Ross 
in  December,  1789,  “I  presume  you  have  received  my  bust,  as  Mr. 
Jefferson  has  forwarded  it  to  you.”1  At  all  events,  only  one  of  these 

1 Sands’s  “Life  of  Jones,”  p.  504,  and  Hamilton’s  “Life  of  Jones,”  p.  332. 


Life  and  Works  of 


132 

eight  busts  is  identified  as  being  in  existence  to-day.  It  is  the  one 
presented  to  General  William  Irvine,  which  now  belongs  to  the 
Pennsylvania  Academy  of  the  Fine  Arts,  and  from  which  that  more 
than  a century  old  institution  has  recently  had  cast  a reproduction 
in  bronze. 

Houdon’s  bust  of  Paul  Jones  received  the  unqualified  approval 
of  his  contemporaries.  Metra  writes,  July  25,  1780,1  “All  Paris 
admires  the  bust  of  Paul  Jones,  the  resemblance  of  which  is  strik- 
ing”; and  when  Sherburne,  the  biographer  of  Jones,  applied  to 
Jefferson  and  Madison  for  the  best  likeness  of  the  Admiral,  Madi- 
son wrote,2  “His  bust  by  Houdon  is  an  exact  likeness,  pourtraying 
well  the  characteristic  features  stamped  on  the  countenance  of  the 
original”;  and  Jefferson  wrote,3  July  2,  1825,  “Houdon’s  bust  of 
him  is  an  excellent  likeness.  Why  have  they  not  taken  a side  face  of 
him  from  that?  Such  an  one  would  be  perfect  1”  This  last  was  the 
sequel  to  a criticism  on  Peale’s  portrait  of  Jones,  an  engraving  of 
which  was  the  frontispiece  to  Sherburne’s  book,  which,  Jefferson 
said,  “I  must  in  truth  and  candor  say  does  not  recall  one  single 
feature  of  his  face  to  my  perfect  recollection  of  him.” 

In  January,  1789,  Colonel  Robert  Burton,  who  had  been  a mem- 
ber of  Congress  from  North  Carolina,  which  State  always  claimed 
Jones  as  her  adopted  son,  wrote  to  Governor  Johnston,4  “As  those 

1 “Correspondance  Secrete,”  Vol.  X,  p.  841. 

2 Sherburne’s  “Life  of  Jones,”  April  28,  1825. 

3 Jefferson  MS.  Correspondence,  Library  of  Congress. 

4 “State  Records  of  North  Carolina,”  Vol.  XXI,  p.  527. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  133 

men  who  have  fought  and  bled  for  us  in  the  late  contest  cannot  be 
held  in  too  high  esteem,  and  as  Chevalier  John  Paul  Jones  is  among 
the  foremost  who  derived  their  appointment  from  this  State  that 
deserves  to  be  held  in  remembrance  to  the  latest  Ages,  I take  the 
liberty  of  offering  to  the  State,  as  a present,  through  you,  its  Chief 
Majistrate,  the  Bust  of  that  great  man  and  good  soldier  to  per- 
petuate his  memory.  If  you  do  me  the  honour  to  accept  it  you  will 
please  send  me  a line.”  To  this  the  Governor  replied,  “I  have 
had  the  pleasure  of  receiving  your  letter  of  the  28th  of  January, 
respecting  the  bust  of  Chevalier  John  Paul  Jones.  I will  readily 
accept  it  on  behalf  of  the  State,  and  will  communicate  your  letter 
to  the  next  Assembly,  that  they  may  make  such  order  as  they  think 
proper.”  But  the  printed  Journals  of  the  House  of  Delegates  of 
North  Carolina  fail  to  show  that  the  subject  was  brought  up  for 
action.  It  is  not  unlikely  that  Colonel  Burton  was  a little  prema- 
ture in  his  offer,  for  more  than  two  years  afterward  Jones  writes  to 
Jefferson  from  Paris,  March  20,  1791, 1 “You  will  observe  that  the 
Empress  of  Russia  has  decorated  me  with  the  great  Order  of  St. 
Ann;  and  I have  appeared  with  that  order  ever  since.  I must  beg 
the  favor  of  you  to  obtain  and  transmit  to  me,  as  soon  as  possible, 
the  proper  authority  of  the  United  States  for  my  retaining  the 
honor.  ...  I am  much  obliged  by  the  trouble  you  took  in  forward- 
ing, before  you  left  Europe,  the  busts  I had  promised  to  different 
gentlemen  in  America.  Having  lately  received  a letter  from  Mr. 

1 Sherburne’s  “Life  of  Jones,”  p.  329. 


Life  and  Works  of 


134 

Burton,  a former  member  of  Congress,  with  whom  I had  the  honor 
of  being  acquainted  at  New  York,  requesting  my  bust  in  behalf  of 
the  State  of  North  Carolina,  I have  ordered  Mr.  Houdon  to  pre- 
pare and  forward  it  by  the  first  ship  from  Havre-de-Grace  for 
Philadelphia;  and  as  that  bust  will  be  decorated  with  the  Order  of 
St.  Ann  on  the  American  uniform,  this  is  one  reason  why  I wish  to 
be  authorized  by  the  United  States  to  wear  that  order.  I shall  take 
the  liberty  of  addressing  the  bust  to  you,  to  deliver  it  to  the  North 
Carolina  delegates,  who  will  be  so  good  as  to  forward  it  to  the  Gov- 
ernor of  that  State.”  Whether  this  bust,  decorated  with  the  order 
of  St.  Ann,  was  ever  made  and  forwarded  to  this  country,  is  not 
known,  but  there  is  no  record  of  its  having  been  received  by  the 
State  of  North  Carolina,  and  it  is  not  now  in  the  possession  of  that 
State. 

A few  months  later  Jones  presented  one  to  Baron  Grimm,1  who 
has  preserved  for  us  the  genesis  of  the  bust.  From  a passage  in 
Jones’s  “Journal  of  the  Campaign  of  the  Liman,”  dated  St.  Peters- 
burg, July  29,  1 789, 2 in  which  he  says,  “A  Washington,  a Franklin, 
a D’Estaing,  a La  Fayette  think  the  bust  of  Paul  Jones  worthy  of 
being  placed  side  by  side  with  their  own,”  it  would  seem  that  he 
had  also  made  presents  of  his  bust  to  Franklin,  D’Estaing  and  La 
Fayette,  making  sixteen  in  all  that  he  gave  away,  and  yet  of  these 
only  the  one  given  to  Irvine  can  be  identified  as  in  existence  at  this 

2 Sands’s  “Life  of  Jones,”  p.  469. 


1 Sands’s  “Life  of  Jones,”  p.  527. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  i35 

day.  Two  of  Houdon’s  busts  of  Jones  belong  to  the  National  Acad- 
emy of  Design,  New  York,  and  there  was  one  in  the  old  Boston 
Museum,  which  since  its  extinction  has  become  the  property  of  Mr. 
C.  H.  Taylor,  Jr.,  of  Boston;  but  the  pedigrees  of  these  three  are 
unknown.  Each  is  signed  and  dated,  “houdon  f.  1780.”  From  one 
of  those  at  the  Academy  of  Design,  which  came  from  the  old  Amer- 
ican Academy  of  Arts,  presided  over  by  Colonel  Trumbull,  twenty 
reproductions  were  made  in  the  spring  of  1904  under  the  direction 
of  Mr.  Frank  D.  Millet,  and  copies  in  bronze  were  placed  in  the 
Navy  Department  at  Washington  and  in  the  Naval  Institute  at 
Annapolis;  while  plaster  copies  were  deposited  in  the  Corcoran 
Gallery  of  Art,  Washington,  D.  C.;  the  South  Kensington  Mu- 
seum, London,  England;  the  National  Museum  at  Berlin;  and  the 
Trocadero  Museum  in  Paris.  It  was  the  copy  in  the  Trocadero 
Museum  that  was  used  in  the  identification  of  the  exhumed  body  in 
Paris.  These  reproductions  are  noted  here  as  a warning  against 
future  misstatements  as  to  their  being  originals. 

The  French  experts  for  the  identification  of  the  remains  also  had 
the  use  of  a bust  known  as  “the  Biron  bust  of  Jones,”  from  the  name 
of  its  then  owner,  but  which  has  since  passed  into  the  hands  of  Mr. 
J.  Pierpont  Morgan,  of  New  York,  two  views  of  which  are  repro- 
duced in  the  commemorative  volume  on  Paul  Jones,  published  by 
the  government.  This  bust  also  is  attributed  to  Houdon,  an  at- 
tribution of  authorship,  judging  from  the  reproductions,  I feel  quite 


Life  and  Works  of 


1 36 

sure  is  apocryphal.  Not  only  does  the  work  lack  the  breadth, 
virility  and  naturalism  of  Houdon’s  work,  but  it  lacks  also  the  well 
known  signature  of  the  artist,  which  was  almost  always  placed  on 
the  original  works  that  this  master  created.  I am  also  clearly  con- 
vinced that  it  is  not  a bust  of  Paul  Jones  or  of  any  naval  com- 
mander, but  the  bust  of  some  junior  officer  in  the  army,  the  proof 
of  which  is  found  in  the  bust  itself.  It  is  not  only  wholly  unlike  the 
unquestioned  bust  of  Jones  by  Houdon  in  contour  and  in  character, 
as  also  all  other  authentic  portraits  of  him,  but  is  decorated  with 
only  one  epaulette,  worn  on  the  right  shoulder,  which  was  the  in- 
signia of  rank  of  a junior  officer  in  the  armies  of  France  and  of 
Great  Britain  in  the  eighteenth  century.  Paul  Jones,  as  captain  in 
the  navy,  was  entitled  to  and  always  wore  two  epaulettes,  as  Hou- 
don represents  him  in  his  veritable  bust  of  1780.  Apart  from  these 
undeniable  and  unanswerable  facts,  it  will  not  bear  comparative 
dissection  with  the  unquestioned  Houdon  bust  of  Jones,  and  it  is 
not  decorated  with  either  of  the  orders  that  we  have  seen  Paul  Jones 
was  so  eager  to  have  represented  on  the  busts  that  Houdon  surely 
did  make  of  him. 

Neither  was  this  bust  an  heirloom  in  the  Biron  family,  as  has 
been  stated,  but  was  purchased  by  the  late  Marquis  de  Biron,  from 
an  artist,  who  had  bought  it  at  a public  sale,  outside  of  Paris,  as  a 
bust  of  an  unknown  man  and  not  as  a portrait  of  Paul  Jones, 
wholly  for  its  artistic  merit  as  a terra-cotta  by  Houdon;  and 
it  was  not  until  a supposed  resemblance  of  it  to  the  profile  on  the 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  137 

Dupre  medal  of  Jones,  which  was  modeled  from  the  Houdon  bust 
of  1780,  was  pointed  out  to  the  Marquis  de  Biron  by  an  American 
visitor,  that  it  was  given  the  name  of  Paul  Jones.1  Mr.  Frank  D. 
Millet,  the  distinguished  painter,  who  saw  this  terra-cotta  in  Paris, 
is  of  the  opinion  that  it  is  not  a portrait-bust  of  Paul  Jones,  while 
he  thinks  it  may  be  by  Houdon;  and  Mr.  Charles  Grafly,  the  emi- 
nent sculptor,  who  has  seen  only  the  photograph,  thinks  the  bust  is 
neither  by  Houdon  nor  of  Jones.2  It  was  not  unreasonable  to  sup- 
pose the  bust  was  an  heirloom  in  the  Biron  family,  as  Jones  was 
acquainted  with  his  contemporary  Marquis  de  Biron,  whose 
nephew,  the  Due  de  Lauzun,  was  serving  with  the  French  army  in 
America,  and  Bachaumont  preserves  a very  good  story  apropos  of 
this.3  “Some  days  since  the  Marechal  de  Biron,  desirous  of  enter- 
taining all  strangers  of  distinction  and  merit,  gave  a dinner  to  Paul 
Jones.  This  nobleman  asks  many  questions,  and  by  two  answers  of 
the  American,  which  have  been  preserved,  one  can  judge  of  his 
spirit.  The  Marechal,  speaking  to  him  of  Captain  Pearson,  Com- 
mander of  the  Serapis,  the  adversary  who  gave  him  his  victory  and 
glory,  remarked  that  he  had  been  made  a Knight.  Would  that  I 
might  some  day  cause  him  to  be  made  an  Earl.’  The  Marechal 

1 Letters  from  the  Marquis  de  Biron  to  Mr.  Hart,  March  30  and  May  2,  1907; 
Loubat’s  “Medallic  History,”  p.  xxi;  Saunier’s  “Augustin  Dupre,”  p.  26. 

2 Lady  Dilke,  in  her  “Sculptors  of  France,”  prints  a remarkable  foot-note  to  her  list  of 
Houdon’s  works  exhibited  at  the  various  Salons.  Under  date  of  1781,  “Paul  Jones. — 
This  bust  is  now  in  the  possession  of  M.  le  Marquis  de  Biron,  B.B.”  Our  text  shows 
the  inaccuracy  of  such  a statement. 

8 “Memoires  Secrets,”  May  20,  1780,  Vol.  XV,  p.  181. 


Life  and  Works  of 


138 

some  time  afterward  asked  if  he  had  seen  the  review  and  observed 
closely  the  manoeuvres  of  the  Regiment  of  the  Guard.  £I  should 
much  rather,’  he  answered,  £have  seen  them  manoeuvring  in  Hyde 
Park.’  The  rest  of  the  conversation  was  carried  on  through  an  in- 
terpreter, as  Jones  was  not  completely  master  of  our  language.” 

This  brings  us  to  the  identification  of  the  body  of  Paul  Jones  by 
comparisons  with  the  Houdon  bust  of  him;  and,  to  begin,  let  it  be 
distinctly  understood  that  the  bust  of  Paul  Jones,  signed  “houdon 
f.  1780,”  is  a life-size  bust,  a fact  that  has  been  disputed;  owing, 
doubtless,  to  its  beautiful  proportions  making  it  appear  slightly 
small,  when  in  fact  it  is  decidedly  a large  head. 

The  American  Ambassador,  in  his  official  report  to  the  United 
States  Government  upon  the  remains  of  Jones,  says: 

To  furnish  the  anthropologists  with  the  required  data,  there  was 
obtained,  upon  personal  application,  permission  to  make  all  the  desired 
measurements  of  the  Houdon  bust  of  Paul  Jones,  a little  more  than 
three-quarter  size , owned  by  the  Marquis  de  Biron,  a very  artistic  work 
representing  the  Admiral  in  court  dress , with  the  hair  curled  in  rolls 
upon  the  temples.  These  rolls  were  identical  with  those  found  upon  the 
body.  There  was  procured,  through  the  courtesy  of  the  Director  of  the 
Trocadero  Museum,  a copy  of  the  other  well  known  bust  of  Paul  Jones 
by  Houdon,  one  of  the  most  accurate  works  of  the  famous  sculptor,  who 
was  also  an  admirer  of  the  subject.  It  represents  Paul  Jones  in  the  uni- 
form of  an  Admiral,  and  was  found  more  useful  for  the  purpose  of  mak- 
ing the  comparative  measurements  on  account  of  its  being  life  size.1 

1 Papers  relative  to  the  Foreign  Relations  of  the  United  States,  Washington,  1906, 
p.  435.  The  official  report  is  the  article  previously  published  in  “The  Century  Maga- 
zine” for  October,  1905,  by  General  Horace  Porter. 


SIGNATURE  OF  HOUDON  ON  BUST  OF  JOHN  PAUF  JONES 
In  Pennsylvania  Academy  of  the  Fine  Arts,  Philadelphia 

(Houdon’s  usual  signature  on  his  works.) 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  I39 

The  italics  in  the  above  are  to  note  the  inaccuracy  of  statement  in 
a matter  of  such  importance  that  correctness  and  exactness  are  of 
primary  necessity.  As  already  stated,  the  subject  of  the  Biron  bust 
is  represented  in  military  uniform  and  not  “in  court  dress”  as  that 
expression  is  commonly  understood,  the  only  court  dress  for  an 
officer  in  the  service  being  his  full-dress  uniform.  By  comparison 
with  what  has  it  been  determined  that  the  Biron  bust  is  a little  less 
than  a quarter  under  life  size?  There  is  no  undeviating  standard 
life  size  by  which  the  proportions  of  a head  are  determined;  and  if 
the  comparison  was  made  with  the  cadaver  the  Ambassador  was 
seeking  to  establish  as  the  body  of  Jones,  it  was  making  the  unknown 
quantity  the  canon  by  which  to  fix  its  own  value.  Or  were  the  com- 
parisons made  with  the  unquestioned  Houdon  bust  of  Jones?  If  so, 
did  not  the  great  dissimilarity  of  form  and  contour  and  character 
between  the  two  busts  strike  the  Ambassador  and  the  experts  so  as 
to  make  them  question,  if  not  actually  doubt,  whether  the  Biron 
bust  was  of  Paul  Jones?  These  are  mere  introductory  guide- 
posts  to  lead  the  reader  to  a serious  consideration  of  the  greater 
subject. 

One  of  the  French  experts,  Dr.  Georges  Papillault,  seems  to  coin- 
cide in  this  view.  He  says  in  his  report:1 

There  exist  two  busts  of  the  Admiral  made  by  the  well  known  French 
sculptor  of  the  period,  Houdon.  One  of  these  belongs  to  the  Marquis 
de  Biron  and  the  other  is  from  a Philadelphia  gallery.  A replica  of  the 


1 “The  Independent,”  July  13,  1905,  p.  68. 


140 


Life  and  Works  of 


latter  is  to  be  found  in  the  collection  of  casts  in  the  Trocadero  Museum, 
here  in  Paris.  Both  of  these  were  placed  at  my  disposal,  but  after  a care- 
ful examination  I utilized  only  the  Philadelphia  bust;  and  for  this  reason, 
though  both  of  the  busts  appear  to  be  authentic,  one  was  evidently  far 
more  valuable  for  my  purpose  than  the  other.  They  were  surely  made 
at  widely  different  periods , and  the  aim  and  method  of  the  sculptor  were 
not  the  same  in  both  instances.  The  Philadelphia  bust  represents  the 
Admiral  in  uniform.  The  head  is  energetic  and  the  pose  that  of  one 
commanding.  It  is  plain  that  the  artist  is  copying  life.  The  modeling  is 
very  studied  and  precise.  Every  wrinkle  of  the  skin  is  reproduced.  You 
feel  that  this  is  a likeness. 

A very  different  impression  is  made  upon  you  by  the  terra-cotta  be- 
longing to  the  Marquis  de  Biron.  The  rough  sailor  has  become  a cour- 
tier. The  hair  is  not  smooth  as  in  the  first  bust,  but  is  curled  and  done 
up  in  elegant  braids.  The  face  is  made  more  refined.  The  artist  has 
attenuated  its  energy  and  diminished  its  robustness.  The  protuberances 
of  the  forehead  are  effaced.  It  is  a work  full  of  grace  and  spirit,  but 
rather  conventional.  Ploudon  wished  to  flatter  the  weakness  of  him 
who  had  become  “so  careful  in  his  dress  that  it  was  remarked.”  There 
was  but  one  detail  in  this  bust  that  was  worthy  of  note  in  connection  with 
the  matter  in  hand;  and  this  detail  was  an  important  one:  the  hair  was 
arranged  exactly  as  on  the  corpse  before  me. 

This  dissection  and  analytical  criticism  of  the  Biron  bust  show 
that  it  cannot  be  the  work  of  “the  first  sculptor  of  his  century,”  as 
Charles  Blanc  properly  calls  Houdon,1  and  that  it  is  not  in  the  least 
likely  to  be  of  Paul  Jones.  Think  of  Houdon,  “the  true  master  of 
his  epoch,”  as  Paul  Mantz  names  him,2  “the  great  evocator  of  phy- 

1 “Gazette  des  Beaux  Arts,”  Vol.  VI,  p.  16.  2 Ibid.,  Vol.  X,  p.  308. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  141 

siognomies,”  as  Andre  Michel  styles  him,1  in  his  resistless  natural- 
ism and  originality,  producing  a mere  conventional  head  “to  flatter 
the  weakness”  of  his  sitter;  robbing  the  rugged  face  of  the  valiant 
sailor  of  all  its  character  and  characteristics;  making  it  more  re- 
fined, attenuating  its  energy,  diminishing  its  robustness,  and  ef- 
facing the  protuberances  of  the  forehead.  Just  think  of  Houdon, 
the  man  and  the  artist  as  we  know  him,  who  marked  the  face  of 
Gluck  with  the  pits  of  the  smallpox,  listening  to  such  a proposition, 
much  less  carrying  it  out.  To  do  so  seems  to  be  to  out-Herod  Herod! 

And  as  to  the  subject  being  Paul  Jones:  Did  Jones  ever  show 
himself  to  be  so  sapless  that  he  would  be  stripped  of  his  energy  and 
robustness,  and  have  the  characteristic  protuberances  of  his  fore- 
head effaced?  He  was  a vain  man,  it  is  true;  but  he  was  vain,  as  he 
had  a right  to  be,  of  what  he  had  accomplished  through  the  posses- 
sion of  those  very  qualities  that  the  Biron  bust  absolutely  lacks ; and 
he  was  vain,  very  vain,  of  the  honors  his  prowess  and  manhood  had 
won  for  him,  his  sword  and  his  title  and  his  orders  that  he  always 
wore;  and  as  he  was  “so  careful  in  his  dress,”  would  he  not  have 
had  these  orders  fastened  on  this  Biron  bust,  if  it  were  of  him,  as  he 
did  upon  the  unquestioned  Houdon  bust  of  1780?  Dr.  Papillault 
says  of  it  and  the  bust  of  1780,  “they  were  surely  made  at  widely 
different  periods,”  an  impression  that  would  strike  any  one,  but  a 
physical  impossibility  if  both  are  from  life  and  by  Houdon,  as  the 

^‘Journal  des  Debats,”  July  n,  1905. 


I42 


Life  and  Works  of 


Biron  bust  is  of  a much  younger  man  than  the  Paul  Jones  of  1780, 
before  which  year  Jones  had  done  nothing  to  be  immortalized  by 
the  genius  of  Houdon,  nor  had  he  been  in  Paris  to  meet  the  sculptor. 

We  know  that  Paul  Jones  was  in  his  thirty-third  year  when  Hou- 
don did  model  his  bust.  His  hard  and  hazardous  seafaring,  fighting 
life  had  seared  his  face  and  added  half  his  years  to  his  appearance, 
so  that  the  bust  looks  like  that  of  a man  of  fifty  and  is  an  invaluable 
human  document.  The  Biron  bust,  on  the  contrary,  by  whomever 
it  is  and  of  whomever  it  is,  represents  a man  under  thirty,  with  a 
weak,  characterless,  untoiled  face,  which  leaves  one  to  choose  only 
whichever  horn  of  the  dilemma  is  preferred,— either  that  it  is  not 
of  Paul  Jones,  as  it  surely  is  not,  or  that  it  is  so  poor  and  emascu- 
lated a likeness  as  to  be  absolutely  valueless  as  a portrait  of  a dis- 
tinguished historical  personage.  And  remember,  the  Marquis  de 
Biron  did  not  acquire  it  as  a portrait-bust  of  Paul  Jones,  but  merely 
as  a work  of  art  by  Jean  Antoine  Houdon.  This,  we  think,  disposes 
of  the  Biron  bust,  as  to  its  being  by  Houdon  or  of  Paul  Jones. 

Let  us  now  critically  inquire  into  the  identification  of  the  cad- 
aver, unearthed  by  General  Porter,  by  means  of  comparisons  with 
the  true  Houdon  bust  of  Paul  Jones  and  “historical  documents.” 

Dr.  Papillault  says  very  correctly  in  his  report  (p.  68)  : 

One  must  not  expect  to  find  the  traits  exactly  the  same  in  a bust  and  in 
the  dead  face.  The  former  represents  living  tissues,  filled  out  by  the 
blood  which  animates  them;  whereas  in  the  second  case  we  have  before 
us  a skeleton  covered  with  tissues  hardened  in  this  instance  by  alcohol. 


H.3 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon 

Furthermore,  a sculptor  rarely  takes  many  measurements.  When  he  has 
noted  the  principal  guiding  marks,  he  generally  lays  aside  his  compasses 
and  devotes  his  attention  to  catching  the  expression  of  the  face  and  get- 
ting a likeness. 

He  then  refers  to  the  many  and  great  “variations  of  the  human 
face  and  its  different  parts,”  compares  the  resemblance  that  he  finds 
in  the  bust  and  in  the  head  of  the  cadaver,  and  concludes  that  there 
is  “a  strong  general  likeness  between  bust  and  face.”  The  measure- 
ments that  Dr.  Papillault  took  in  accordance  with  the  methods  that 
he  teaches,  he  finds,  “produce  still  more  conclusive  results”;  but  he 
says,  naively,  that  he  does  “not  know  what  system  Houdon  em- 
ployed” in  making  measurements  of  the  head,  after  having  pre- 
viously said,  with  less  naivete  and  more  truth,  that  “a  sculptor 
rarely  takes  many  measurements.”  He  then  explains  his  endeavor 
to  prove  that  sculptors  are  merely  mechanics  in  their  work,  and  not 
creative  artists,  by  the  comparative  measurements  he  made  of  a bust 
by  Dalou,  “who  was  remarkable  for  veracity  in  art  and  whose  ex- 
cessive use  of  the  compasses  was  even  criticized  by  his  fellow-ar- 
tists,” and  its  original;  yet  he  “found  that  in  this  instance  there 
were  errors,”  thus  disproving  the  very  hypothesis  he  was  seeking  to 
uphold.  In  a forlorn  hope  to  sustain  the  brief  he  had  been  given 
to  advocate,  he  adds,  “Houdon’s  exactness  is  notable,  and  was  most 
valuable  in  this  labor  which  I now  have  in  hand.”  If,  by  Houdon’s 
exactness  being  notable,  Dr.  Papillault  means,  as  it  would  seem, 
mensuration— mathematical  exactness  in  measurements,— we  chal- 


144 


Life  and  Works  of 


lenge  him,  or  any  one  else  who  may  be  willing  to  take  up  the 
gauntlet,  to  show  that  Houdon  followed  any  system  of  exact  meas- 
urements in  modeling  from  nature  the  superb  creations  of  his  ar- 
tistic brain  that  are  the  admiration  of  the  art  world  to-day.  It  is 
the  acme  of  absurdity  and  art  ignorance  to  suggest  such  a thing,  as 
much  so  as  to  think  of  any  other  great  master  of  the  plastic  art,  from 
Phidias  down,  doing  such  a mechanical  job.  The  consensus  of 
opinion  of  the  most  eminent  of  American  sculptors  which  the  writer 
has  obtained,  is  against  the  measurements  of  a bust  being  accepted 
as  the  exact  measurements  of  the  living  head  reproduced,  as  the 
true  artist  makes  but  little  moment  of  measuring  and  is  likely  to 
vary  in  his  work  from  the  measurements  of  nature,  exaggerating 
parts,  either  plus  or  minus,  to  produce  a desired  effect.  The  truth  is 
that  the  sculptor  seeks  to  express  character  and  general  lifelikeness, 
not  the  mathematical  measurements  of  the  subject,  and  therefore, 
while  Houdon  unquestionably  was  very  exact,  he  may  have  been 
also  very  inaccurate;  consequently,  to  take  a work  of  art  to  prove  a 
scientific  fact  seems,  to  say  the  least,  most  unscientific. 

I have  thus  given  a complete  summary  of  all  the  points  made  by 
Dr.  Papillault  in  his  report,  which  is  the  only  rational  one  offered 
to  us,1  so  as  to  give  him  its  full  benefit,  but  cui  bono?  Has  he  not 
cut  the  measuring-ground  from  under  his  own  feet  when  he  says, 


1 I take  no  note  of  the  autopsy  and  the  anatomo-pathological  remarks  thereon  of 
Dr.  Capitan,  as  I have  no  qualification  for  the  task,  and  medical  men  of  the  first  rank  in 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  145 

“One  must  not  expect  to  find  the  traits  exactly  the  same  in  a bust 
and  in  the  dead  face”?  This  is  undeniably  true.  Then  of  what 
value  are  his  respective  measurements  of  the  Houdon  bust  of  Paul 
Jones  and  of  the  disinterred  cadaver?  All  their  comparison  can 
possibly  signify,  if  anything,  is  a remarkable  coincidence,  such  as  is 
frequently  met  with  in  daily  affairs  by  each  one  of  us— “only  this 
and  nothing  more.”  The  coincidence  of  the  two  restored  noses  on 
the  two  different  busts  of  La  Fayette  by  Houdon,  as  related  on  an- 
other page,  seems  to  be  much  more  remarkable.  Had  Dr.  Papil- 
lault  frankly  avowed  this  position,  as  the  only  logical  sequence  to 
be  deduced  from  his  premise,  he  would  have  commanded  greater 
respect  for  his  work,  as  would  General  Porter  did  he  not  ask  the 
people  of  this  broad  land  and  the  world  at  large,  scientific  as  well 
as  lay,  to  accept  his  proposition  upon  what  he  calls  “the  principle 
of  elimination,”  that,  because  five  leaden  coffins  were  found  and 
“four  having  been  easily  identified”  as  not  of  Paul  Jones,  “the  other 
must  be  the  coffin  sought.”1 

That  the  veritable  coffin  containing  the  remains  of  so  distin- 
guished a personage  as  Paul  Jones,  whose  body  at  the  time  it  was 
interred  was  interred  only  temporarily,— as  it  was  supposed  most 
naturally  that  his  adopted  country,  which  he  had  served  so  signally 

this  country  consider  it  impossible  to  make  a scientific  autopsy,  that  could  be  of  any 
value  or  significance  in  an  examination  of  this  character,  upon  a body  that  had  been 
buried  for  more  than  a century. 

1 Official  Report,  p.  433. 


Life  and  Works  of 


146 

and  so  well,  would  desire  to  disinter  and  remove  it  to  its  own  land, 
for  permanent  burial,1— was  put  into  the  ground  without  a plate, 
or  any  other  sign  of  identification  upon  it,  to  indicate  whose  body 
was  contained  therein,  is  taxing  credulity  too  far. 

Dr.  Papillault  sums  up  (p.  69)  that  “the  age,  height,  color  of  the 
hair  and  six  dimensions  of  the  face  which  were  known,  were  also 
repeated  on  the  corpse.’’  He  forgets  that  he  has  said  (p.  66),  “The 
age  of  a person  cannot  be  exactly  fixed  by  the  examination  of  the 
corpse . . . . The  body  before  us  had  reached  maturity  and  could 
have  the  age  which  Paul  Jones  had.”  So  the  first  point  of  the  four 
that  “were  known” — the  age — was  not  found  repeated  in  the 
corpse,  because,  as  Dr.  Papillault  himself  says,  the  examination  of 
a corpse  will  not  fix  the  age. 

The  second  point— height— of  the  four  that  Dr.  Papillault  says 
“were  known,”  I challenge.  The  height  given  by  General  Porter 
to  the  experts— “5  feet  7 inches”— and  which  Dr.  Papillault  says 
was  a most  important  fact  (p.  67),  is  a forgery  by  Buell  in  his  cap- 
tivating book  of  fiction,  which  every  scholar  knows  is  unauthentic 
and  valueless.  On  this  point  of  Jones’s  height  and  appearance, 
General  Porter,  in  his  “Official  Certification  of  the  American  Em- 
bassy and  Consulate  of  the  Identification  of  the  Body  of  Ad- 
miral John  Paul  Jones,”2  says  that  Paul  Jones  “was  5 feet  7 
inches  tall,  slender  in  build,  of  exquisitely  symmetrical  form,  with 
noticeably  perfect  development  of  limbs  (Anecdotes  of  the  Court 


1 Official  Report,  p.  428. 


2 Official  Report,  p.  443. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  i47 

of  Louis  XVI).”  From  this  quotation  and  citation  of  authority, 
it  would  naturally  be  supposed  that  General  Porter  was  citing  di- 
rect from  the  work  he  names,  even  though  he  does  fail  to  give  refer- 
ence to  the  page  of  his  citation.  But  he  is  not . His  quotation  is 
copied,  without  any  attempt  at  verification,  or  he  would  have  had 
some  insight  into  its  character,  from  Buell,  Vol.  I,  p.  322,  where  it 
is  ascribed  to  the  “Anecdotes,”  also  without  the  page  being  given 
for  reference.  Now  Buell  was  a very  cunning  and  adroit  literary 
forger,  quite  worthy  of  entering  the  ranks  with  Chatterton  and 
Ireland.  He  was  wary  and  surveyed  his  field  well  before  commit- 
ting the  overt  act,  in  his  endeavor  to  conceal  the  perpetration  of 
his  forgeries.  This  is  admirably  illustrated  in  his  use  of  the 
“Anecdotes.”  In  his  list  of  the  works  he  pretends  to  have  con- 
sulted in  the  preparation  of  his  book  (Vol.  II,  p.  358),  there 
appear  “Historical  Anecdotes  of  the  Court  of  Louis  XV,  by  Sou- 
lavie,”  and  “Historical  Anecdotes  of  the  Court  of  Louis  XVI, 
anonymous,”  without  any  imprint  or  edition  being  given  of  either. 
A thorough  examination  of  bibliographies  and  catalogues  of  public 
libraries  here  and  abroad  has  discovered  the  fact  that  books  with 
these  titles  have  never  even  been  published,  both  being  Buell’s  in- 
vention. Soulavie  did  publish,  in  1802,  “Memoires  historiques  et 
politiques  du  Regne  de  Louis  XVI,”  in  six  volumes,  but  it  contains 
no  reference  whatever  to  Paul  Jones  from  the  first  page  to  the  last. 
The  deduction  is  obvious.  Buell  fabricated  every  word  that  he 
pretended  to  quote  from  the  “Anecdotes,”  just  as  he  did  Jones’s 


148 


Life  and  Works  of 


bequest  of  his  sword  to  Dale,1  and  a mass  of  other  entertaining  mat- 
ter in  his  volumes,  so  that  the  “historical  documents”  for  Jones’s 
height,  given  by  Ambassador  Porter  to  the  experts,  instead  of  being 
from  the  volume  he  gives  as  though  his  own  original  authority,  are 
Buell’s  forgery. 

The  only  statement  of  any  value  that  we  have  of  Jones’s  stature  is 
that  given  by  Sands,  who  compiled  the  memoir  for  the  family:  “He 
was  of  the  middle  size,  if  not  rather  under.”2  This  Buell  made  “5 
feet  7 inches,”  and  Brady,  with  rather  more  show  of  reason  but  no 
greater  right,  “5  feet  5 inches.”3  Thus  the  ground  again  is  cut 
completely  from  under  the  feet  of  General  Porter  and  Dr.  Pa- 
pillault,  and  the  height  of  Jones,  which  they  put  down  among  the 
points  that  “were  known,”  is  still  an  unknown  quantity,  and  conse- 
quently the  comparative  measurements  of  the  height  of  the  cadaver 
are  utterly  worthless  in  identifying  the  body  as  that  of  Paul  Jones. 

Likewise,  the  color  of  the  hair,  which  General  Porter  accepts,  is 
that  given  by  Buell  from  the  forged  “Anecdotes”:  “His  hair  and 
eyebrows  are  black.”  General  Porter,  seeing  that  the  hair  of  his 
cadaver  was  not  black,  and  not  wishing  publicly  to  stultify  the  star 
authority  he  was  using,  makes  it  “very  dark  brown— generally 
speaking,  might  be  called  black.”  This,  however,  was  not  the 
color  of  Paul  Jones’s  hair.  We  have  the  very  best  evidence  pos- 

1 “History  of  the  Sword  Presented  by  Louis  XVI  to  John  Paul  Jones,”  by  Charles 
Henry  Hart.  Proc.  U.  S.  Naval  Inst.,  Vol.  XXXIII,  p.  712. 

2 Sands’s  Jones,  p.  550. 

3 Brady’s  Jones,  p.  424. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  i49 

sible  as  to  the  color  of  Jones’s  hair,  and  that  is  the  hair  itself. 
As  if  to  provide  against  just  such  a contingency  as  has  happened, 
Jones  had  preserved  for  us  a lock  of  the  hair  of  his  head;  and  not 
merely  a few  strands,  but  a long  coil.  As  we  have  already  stated, 
at  the  same  period  as  Jones  sat  for  Houdon,  he  sat  to  the  Comtesse 
Bourbon  de  la  Vendahl,  an  accomplished  amateur,  for  a miniature 
which  she  painted  of  him,  and  for  the  setting  of  which  she  doubt- 
less wanted  the  lock  of  his  hair  that  he  sent  to  her  in  the  letter  of 
June  7,  1780,  heretofore  quoted.  This  miniature,  with  the  finely 
braided  lock  of  Jones’s  hair  in  the  back,  around  a blue  enameled 
medallion  bearing  Jones’s  initials,  “J.  P.  J.,”  interlaced  in  gold,  is 
in  the  museum  of  the  United  States  Naval  Institute  at  Annapolis, 
Md.,1  and  the  color  of  the  hair  is  reddish  brown,  a dark  sandy,  as  it 
should  be  on  the  head  of  a typical  Scotsman,  and  not  “very  dark 
brown,”  that  any  one  could  possibly  call  black.  So  that  as  to  the 
third  point— the  color  of  the  hair,  instead  of  being  “identical”  with 
that  on  the  exhumed  body,  as  General  Porter  says  it  is,  is  nothing 
whatever  like  it. 

The  last  of  the  four  propositions  that  Dr.  Papillault  says  “were 
known”— six  dimensions  of  the  face— is  certainly  a most  unwar- 
rantable and  audacious  assertion.  What  semblance  of  authority  is 
there  for  this  statement?  Not  even  the  romance-writer  Buell  goes 
so  far.  Doubtless  what  Dr.  Papillault  meant  was  that  six  dimen- 

1 “The  Naval  Academy  Miniature  of  John  Paul  Jones,”  by  Prof.  Philip  R.  Alger. 
Proceedings  U.  S.  Naval  Inst.,  Vol.  XXXI,  p.  585. 


Life  and  Works  of 


150 

sions  of  the  Houdon  bust  were  known,  not  six  dimensions  of  the 
human  face  of  Paul  Jones.  Of  course  he  knew  the  dimensions  of 
the  bust,  for  had  he  not  taken  them  himself?  But  of  what  value  are 
the  measurements  of  the  bust,  for  comparison  with  other  measure- 
ments, until  it  is  proved  first,  beyond  peradventure,  that  Houdon, 
whom  Louis  Gonze  calls  “the  magician  interpreter  of  the  human 
face,”1  was  a mere  mechanic,  with  his  calipers  and  his  tape-line 
always  in  his  hand,  if  his  measurements  have  the  scientific  value 
sought  to  be  given  them  in  this  matter  of  the  identification  of  the 
remains  of  Jones,  and  not,  as  he  is  universally  esteemed,  easily  the 
first  creative  sculptor  of  his  time  and  of  his  land?  This  seems  to  be 
so  palpably  true  that  he  who  runs  may  read,  and  therefore  it  can 
profit  nothing  to  discuss  this  point  further.  Thus  the  four  props 
of  the  foundation  of  the  identification  of  the  unearthed  cadaver  are 
cut  away,  with  the  inevitable  result  of  a definitive  collapse,  leav- 
ing the  identity  of  the  body  taken  to  Annapolis,  for  governmental 
ceremonial  and  interment2  as  the  veritable  body  of  Paul  Jones,  to 
say  the  least,  “ Not  proven” ; and  it  is  not,  in  the  most  distant  degree, 
likely  to  be  the  true  remains  of  that  distinguished  man.  This  result 
flows  of  a necessity  from  the  situation  as  it  exists,  and  which  is  ex- 
actly in  accord  with  the  dogma  of  Dr.  Papillault  when  he  says  (p. 
66),  “The  problem  which  we  had  to  solve  was  especially  difficult 
and  complex.  In  the  first  place,  it  was  necessary  to  study  all  the 

1 “Les  Chefs  d’CEuvres  des  Musees  de  France.” 

2 It  has  not  yet— December,  1911 — been  interred. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  151 

historical  documents  concerning  the  Admiral  which  it  had  been 
possible  to  bring  together,  and  to  compare  them  with  the  data  fur- 
nished by  a careful  examination  of  the  body.  A single  well  estab- 
lished discord  between  these  two  sets  of  facts  would  suffice  to  put  an 
end  to  the  demonstration ” As  we  have  shown,  beyond  a doubt  or 
question,  that  the  “historical  documents”  used  are  forgeries,  pure 
and  simple,  the  parallel  between  them  and  the  body  signifies  noth- 
ing but  coincidence,  and,  as  Dr.  Papillault  himself  says,  puts  “an 
end  to  the  demonstration.” 

Notwithstanding  this  conclusive  judgment  in  the  case,  there  is 
one  point  to  be  considered,  of  great  importance  and  significance, 
as  cumulative  evidence  against  the  identity  of  the  exhumed  remains. 
The  coffin  containing  these  remains  was  taken  from  the  ground  on 
April  7,  1905,  and  in  the  night  of  the  8th  was  transferred  to  the 
Ecole  de  Medecine,  where  a photograph  of  the  body  was  taken, 
which  is  now  before  me,  signed  “F.  Monpillard,  11  avril,  1905.” 
This  photograph  shows  that  the  nose  of  the  man  buried  in  the  ex- 
humed coffin  was  “terribly  arched  and  aquiline,”  to  use  Cowper’s 
expression  in  “The  Task,”  from  the  root,  a pronounced  Roman 
nose,  almost  Semitic  in  its  convexity;  while  the  most  casual  glance 
at  the  Houdon  bust  of  Jones  will  show  the  nose  there  to  be  “con- 
cave from  the  root  and  enlarged  at  the  tip,”1  almost  a pug  nose,  or 
perhaps,  in  its  thickness  at  the  nostrils,  more  like  the  nose  in  the 
negroid  races.  This  marked  difference  can  be  seen  in  a poor  repro- 

1 Brady’s  Jones,  p.  425. 


Life  and  Works  of 


152 

duction  of  the  head,  enlarged  from  this  photograph,  in  “The  Cen- 
tury Magazine”  for  October,  1905,  page  944,  where,  however,  the 
flattened  appearance  below  the  bridge  of  the  nose  must  have  been 
introduced  into  the  plate,  as  it  is  not  like  this  in  the  original  photo- 
graph. The  query  naturally  arises,  What  do  the  experts  say  on  this 
notable  difference,  the  most  important  problem  that  confronted 
them?  Not  one  word . The  only  reference  to  the  nose  in  the  re- 
ports of  the  experts  is  on  page  68,  where  Dr.  Papillault  says,  “The 
root  of  the  nose  does  not  turn  in,  as  frequently  happens,  and  the 
bridge  is  thin.,y  The  importance  of  these  words,  in  this  connection, 
cannot  be  lost.  The  root  of  the  nose  in  the  true  Houdon  bust  of 
Jones  does  turn  in  and  the  bridge  is  thick . 

A variance  so  irreconcilable  as  this  induced  the  writer,  in  July 
of  1905,  to  make  a personal  inquiry  of  General  Porter,  as  to  how 
he  and  the  French  savants  “reconcile  the  utter  dissimilarity  of  the 
noses  in  the  cadaver  and  the  Houdon  bust.”  To  this  General  Porter 
courteously  replied  that  “when  Paul  Jones  was  buried  his  long  hair 
was  gathered  in  a bag  at  the  back  of  his  head.  This  raised  the  head 
so  high  that  the  lid  of  the  coffin  flattened  it,  pressed  it  over  to  the 
right  and  distorted  this  feature.  At  the  angle  at  which  the  photo- 
graph was  taken  the  nose  appears  Roman  or  aquiline,  instead  of 
straight.  The  anthropologists  pay  no  attention  to  the  cartilaginous 
portions  of  the  body  in  making  their  comparisons,  as  these  are  sub- 
ject to  change  in  the  best  preserved  body.  They  measure  only  the 
bony  or  solid  structures.”  In  acknowledging  General  Porter’s 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  I53 

communication  I said,  with  absolute  frankness,  “Accepting  all  that 
you  say  on  the  subject,  I do  not  feel  that  the  case  is  made  out.  This 
view  is  very  materially  strengthened  by  the  publication  of  the  re- 
port of  the  professors  of  the  Paris  Anthropological  School,  in  ‘The 
Independent’  for  July  13,  which  I have  only  seen  since  the  receipt 
of  your  reply,  in  which  not  one  word  is  said,  either  for  or  against, 
of  the  differences  between  the  nose  on  the  cadaver  and  on  the  Hou- 
don bust.  This  I consider  a crucial  point  against  the  opinion  of  the 
experts  and  their  identification  of  the  body.  Why  silent  upon  a 
point  so  prominent  that  it  cannot  be  given  the  go-by?  You  very 
properly  say  in  your  letter  to  me,  ‘The  anthropologists  pay  no  at- 
tention to  the  cartilaginous  portions  of  the  body,  as  they  are  subject 
to  change.’  For  the  purposes  of  this  inquiry  it  is  not  necessary  to 
consider  the  cartilaginous  portions  of  the  nose  at  all.  The  nasal 
bone  is  all-sufficient  for  the  purpose.  In  the  cadaver  it  starts  out 
from  the  root  direct— aquiline,  Roman,  Hebraic.  Impossible  for 
it  to  be  more  pronounced  in  its  form,  and  this  is  the  nasal  bone,  not 
the  cartilage.  It  is  absolutely  convex  from  the  root.  In  the  Phila- 
delphia Houdon  bust— the  identical  one  the  experts  say  they  used1 
— the  nasal  bone,  from  its  root  direct,  is  positively  concave,  beyond 
the  possibility  of  a doubt.  This  is  so  plainly  and  clearly  a fact, 
apparent  to  the  most  casual  and  inexpert  observer,  that  it  is  beyond 
the  dogma  of  opinion.  Such  being  the  case,  the  fact  is  hardly  ex- 

1 In  fact,  they  did  not  use  the  Philadelphia  Houdon  bust  of  Jones,  but  a recent  cast, 
in  the  Trocadero  Museum,  Paris,  from  a bust  in  New  York. 


154  Jean  Antoine  Houdon 

plained  away  by  the  statement  that  the  bag  containing  the  body’s 
hair  raised  the  head  into  contact  with  the  lid  of  the  coffin  and 
changed  the  nose  from  a concave  to  a convex.  Pressure  from  above 
might  possibly  have  changed  a convex  to  a concave,  but  impossible 
to  have  pushed  a depressed  nasal  bone  up  from  below,  so  as  to  be- 
come convex.  The  identity  of  a body  that  is  to  receive  the  homage 
and  honor  of  a great  nation  is  too  important  to  allow  any  senti- 
mental feeling  to  stand  in  the  way  of  a most  thorough  investigation 
by  those  competent  to  form  an  opinion,  as  well  in  this  country  as  in 
France.” 

General  Porter’s  answer  was  that  he  was  writing  a full  account 
of  the  recovery  of  Paul  Jones’s  body,  and  “as  you  take  so  much  in- 
terest in  the  case,  I shall  have  great  pleasure  in  sending  you  a copy.” 
This  account  was  his  official  report,  published  as  a magazine  article 
in  “The  Century”  for  October,  1905,  to  which  frequent  reference 
has  been  made  in  this  discussion,  so  that  it  can  be  examined  in  con- 
nection with  the  views  here  expressed,  always  bearing  in  mind  that 
the  most  important  of  the  “historical  documents”  upon  which  it  is 
based  are  nothing  but  forgeries,  without  any  authority  whatever, 
and  that  the  bust  of  John  Paul  Jones,  by  Jean  Antoine  Houdon,  is 
an  artistic  creation  and  not  an  artisan’s  construction. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

1776-1848 

LA  LOGE  DES  NEUF-SCEURS-MEMBERSHIP  OF  HOUDON,  VOLTAIRE, 
FRANKLIN  AND  PAUL  JONES 

HE  Lodge  of  the  Nine  Sisters,  meaning  the  nine  Muses, 
for  which  Houdon  made  the  bust  of  Paul  Jones,  and 
where  he  is  said  to  have  first  met  Franklin,  is  so  closely 
and  intimately  connected  with  our  quartette— Houdon,  Voltaire, 
Franklin  and  Paul  Jones— that  some  account  of  it  is  not  only  ap- 
propriate and  interesting,  but  important  from  the  fact  of  its  curious 
history  and  the  close  relations  which  the  distinguished  characters 
named  had  with  it.  So  far  as  I have  been  able  to  learn,  the  career 
of  this  unique  body  has  never  been  traced  in  our  tongue,  and  al- 
though Dixmerie,  Melchior  Potier  and  Louis  Amiable  appear  to 
have  written  memorials  of  the  lodge,  I have  been  unable  to  find 
copies  of  any  one  of  these  publications.  The  source  of  almost  all 
the  data  I have  been  able  to  glean  for  this  chapter  has  been  that 
mine  of  recondite  information  and  gossip,  Bachaumont’s  “Me- 
moires  Secrets.”1 

1 The  “Memoires  Secrets,”  in  thirty-six  volumes  duodecimo,  is  a daily  chronicle  cov- 
ering the  period  of  twenty-six  years  from  1762  to  1787;  and  although  the  first  volume 
did  not  appear  until  1777,  six  years  after  the  death  of  Bachaumont,  the  entire  publication 


55 


Life  and  Works  of 


156 

La  Loge  des  Neuf-Soeurs  was  a Masonic  lodge,  but  wholly  and 
entirely  different  from  what  such  bodies  now  are.  Freemasonry 
assumed  in  France  a very  remarkable  form.  “The  attachments  of 
that  people  to  innovation  and  external  finery  produced  the  most 
unwarrantable  alterations  upon  its  principles  and  ceremonies.  . . . 
The  lodges  were  transformed  into  lecturing  rooms  where  the  more 
learned  of  the  Brethren  propounded  the  most  extraordinary  and 
extravagant  theories.”1  While  the  Lodge  of  the  Nine  Sisters  was 
not  chartered  by  the  Grand  Orient  of  Paris  until  March  11,  1776, 
it  was  the  outgrowth  of  an  association  founded  by  the  philosophers 
Helvetius  and  Lalande  in  1769,  under  the  name  of  the  “Atelier  des 
Sciences,”  and  therefore  these  two  distinguished  men  were  gener- 
ally looked  upon  as  the  founders  of  the  Lodge  of  the  Nine  Sisters. 
These  facts,  not  properly  understood  and  explained,  caused  so  noted 
a French  writer  as  Gustave  Desnoiresterres,  in  his  elaborate  work 
on  Voltaire,  to  make  the  anachronous  statement  that  Helvetius,  who 
died  five  years  before  the  foundation  of  the  Nine  Sisters,  was,  with 
Lalande,  its  founder.2  As  can  be  understood,  this  lodge  was  not  in 
the  least  a close  body  in  the  meaning  of  ancient  Freemasonry,  but 
rather  a meeting-place  or  club  for  persons  of  distinction,  intelli- 

is  known  by  his  name.  His  volumes  were  edited  by  Pidansat  de  Mairobert,  who  con- 
tinued the  record  down  to  his  suicide  in  1779,  when  it  was  taken  up  by  Moufle  d’Anger- 
ville  and  carried  on  until  1787,  and  then  ceased.  The  volumes  bear  the  imprint  of 
“Londres,  John  Adamson,”  and  Paul  Lacroix  wrote  an  erudite  introduction  to  a new 
edition  of  the  Bachaumont  “Memoires”  proper,  issued  in  1883. 

1 “History  of  Freemasonry,”  by  William  Alexander  Laurie,  Edinburgh,  1859,  p.  58. 

2 Desnoiresterres’s“Voltaire  et  la  Societe  au  XVIII  Siecle,”  Part  VIII,  p.  306. 


(Q)  I £§> II  ]hff  IK. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  157 

gence  and  talent,  where  young  men  and  old  men,  in  science,  in 
letters  and  in  arts,  met  on  a much  freer  and  more  familiar  footing 
than  was  possible  elsewhere. 

It  was  the  coming  of  the  Sage  of  Ferney  to  Paris,  in  the  second 
year  of  its  existence,  that  brought  the  Lodge  of  the  Nine  Sisters 
prominently  into  the  social  life  of  the  French  capital.  Voltaire 
arrived  in  Paris,  after  his  exile  of  twenty-eight  years,  on  the  10th 
day  of  February,  1778,  and  in  less  than  four  months  he  was  dead.1 
He  was  received  with  extravagant  demonstrations  of  enthusiasm, 
and  it  is  needless  to  say  the  event  was  a stirring  one  to  all  classes  of 
the  community;  but  its  story  is  too  well  known  to  bear  repeating. 
Voltaire  was  a Freemason,2  though  for  a long  while  one  of  its  most 
pronounced  opponents,  and  the  Masonic  body  at  this  time,  after  the 
persecutions  in  Naples,  was  playing  a not  inconsiderable  role  in 
France,  having  taken  part  in  various  patriotic  events.  Bachau- 
mont  says,3  “Among  the  lodges  of  the  capital,  that  of  the  IX  Sisters 
holds  distinguished  rank,  it  being  composed  of  men  of  letters,  etc. 
At  a meeting  held  on  the  10th  of  this  month,  one  of  the  members, 
M.  de  la  Dixmerie,  proposed  the  health  of  the  aged  invalid  Vol- 
taire, and  sang  some  verses  of  his  own  composition  in  his  honor.” 
Afterward  a resolution  was  passed  naming  a deputation  to  call  and 

1 Desnoiresterres,  Part  VIII,  p.  191. 

2 Condorcet  says  that  Voltaire  “received  the  light”  in  England  in  1728.  Bachaumont 
likewise  says  he  was  a Freemason,  but  Wagniere,  his  private  secretary,  says  positively 
he  was  not. 

3 “Memoires  Secrets,”  March  21,  1778,  Vol.  XI,  p.  192. 


Life  and  Works  of 


158 

congratulate  him  on  his  return  to  Paris  and  to  testify  to  the  interest 
the  lodge  took  in  his  welfare.  It  was  not,  however,  until  the  21st 
instant  that  Voltaire  was  able  to  receive  them,  when,  it  being  but  a 
step  from  the  lodge-room  to  the  house  of  the  Marquis  de  Villette, 
where  Voltaire  was  living,  a body  of  thirty  or  forty  brothers, 
headed  by  their  Venerable,  Lalande,  visited  the  aged  philosopher 
“to  see  and  gaze  at  leisure  at  this  extraordinary  man.”  They  in- 
vited him  to  visit  the  lodge,  which  he  accepted  for  Tuesday,  the  7th 
of  April.  It  was  to  be  an  informal  visit,  but  the  Masons  took  ad- 
vantage of  his  presence  to  initiate  him  into  their  mysteries1  with  an 
elaborate  ceremonial,  presenting  him  with  the  apron  and  Masonic 
jewels  of  Helvetius,  which  the  widow  of  that  illustrious  man  had 
given  to  the  Lodge  of  the  Nine  Sisters. 

J.  F.  Sachse,  librarian  of  the  Grand  Lodge  of  Pennsylvania,  has 
published  “The  Masonic  Chronology  of  Benjamin  Franklin,”2 
wherein  he  sets  down,  under  “February  7,  1778.  Assists  at  the 
initiation  of  Voltaire  in  the  Lodge  of  the  Nine  Sisters.”  This  state- 
ment he  elaborates  and  repeats  in  his  “Franklin  as  a Freemason.”3 
The  date  thus  given  for  the  initiation  of  Voltaire  into  the  Lodge  of 
the  Nine  Sisters  is  not  only  two  months  earlier  than  the  correct 
date,  but  it  is  also  three  days  before  Voltaire  arrived  in  Paris;4  and 

1 Desnoiresterres,  Part  VIII,  pp.  304-308. 

2 “Pennsylvania  Magazine,”  Vol.  XXX,  p.  240. 

3 Grand  Lodge  of  Pennsylvania,  Bicentenary  Celebration,  Philadelphia,  1906,  p.  155. 

4 “Materials  for  the  History  of  Freemasonry  in  France,”  The  New  Age,  January, 
1906,  p.  55,  gives  the  date  of  Voltaire’s  initiation  as  “June  17,  1778,”  or  eighteen  days 
after  he  was  dead.  So  much  for  history  “as  she  is  wrote”! 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  159 

in  none  of  the  contemporary  accounts  of  this  ceremony  is  the  name 
of  Franklin  mentioned  as  even  being  present.  Indeed,  Franklin 
was  not  received  into  membership  with  this  lodge  until  the  follow- 
ing July,  which  would  make  it  nearly  certain  that  he  could  not 
have  been  a participant  at  the  initiation  of  Voltaire  in  April,  and 
that  he  was  not  seems  to  be  conclusively  shown  by  the  absence  of  his 
name  from  among  those  mentioned  as  taking  part  in  the  initiation 
in  the  official  report  of  the  same.1 

Voltaire  died  on  the  30th  day  of  May,  and  in  Bachaumont  we 
find,  under  date  of  July  17,  1778 :2  “Much  surprise  has  been  occa- 
sioned through  Dr.  Franklin’s  taking  part  in  the  celebration  ten- 
dered him  by  the  Lodge  of  the  Nine  Sisters,  charged  as  Dr. 
Franklin  is  with  so  many  grave  matters;  spending  an  entire  day 
with  a mass  of  young  people  and  poetasters,  who  intoxicated  him  to 
a degree  by  their  meaningless  and  puerile  praise.  They  gave  him 
the  apron  of  Voltaire 

This  last  sentence  shows  that  this  “celebration  tendered  him”  was 
his  initiation  into  the  Lodge  of  the  Nine  Sisters,  and  among  the 
Franklin  papers  in  the  American  Philosophical  Society  at  Phila- 
delphia there  are  preserved  no  fewer  than  fifty-four  notices  of  the 
meetings  of  this  lodge  between  the  “9th  of  2d  mo.  5779”  and  the 

1 “Relation  de  Deux  Seances  de  la  Loge  des  Neuf-Soeurs  en  1778.  Extrait  de  la 
planche  a trace  de  la  respectable  loge  des  Neuf-Soeurs  a l’Orient  de  Paris,  le  septieme 
jour  du  quatrieme  mois  de  Fan  de  la  vrai  luminiere  5778.” — Grimm-Diderot  Corre- 
spondance,  Vol.  VIII,  p.  185. 

2 “Memoires  Secrets,”  Vol.  XII,  p.  48. 


i6o 


Life  and  Works  of 


“4th  of  5th  mo.  5785.”  Why  his  earlier  notices  were  not  preserved 
with  equal  care  we  do  not  know,  but  the  oversight  is  to  be  regretted. 
If  Franklin  did  not  assist  at  Voltaire’s  initiation,  he  was  present  at 
the  Lodge  of  Sorrow  commemorative  of  the  dead  Voltaire,  held 
November  28,  1778,  at  which  were  present,  with  the  brethren, 
Mme.  Denis,  the  niece,  and  the  Marquise  de  Villette,  the  adopted 
daughter  of  the  philosopher.  Bachaumont,  in  referring  to  the 
coming  event,  says,1  “It  is  not  to  be  doubted  but  that  Dr.  Franklin, 
a member  of  the  same  lodge,  the  inheritor  of  Voltaire’s  apron  and 
an  admirer  of  the  defunct,  will  take  part  and  distinguish  himself 
by  some  happy  effort  on  this  memorable  day.”  The  details  of  this 
elaborate  ceremony  have  been  recorded  by  Bachaumont,  in  the 
Grimm-Diderot  Correspondance,  by  Desnoiresterres,  and  pic- 
torially  in  “Le  Tombeau  de  Voltaire.”2  There  are,  however,  two 
incidents  connected  with  the  event  that  are  of  especial  interest  here. 
At  the  end  of  the  hall  was  seen  an  arch  of  triumph,  formed  of  gar- 
lands of  flowers,  in  which  appeared  suddenly  the  bust  of  Voltaire 
by  Houdon,  given  to  the  lodge  by  Mme.  Denis.3  The  following 
February,  Houdon  presented  the  lodge  with  another  bust  of  Vol- 
taire,4 presumably  different  from  the  one  received  from  Mme. 
Denis.  And  as  the  ceremonial  closed,  the  Venerable  of  the  Lodge, 

1 “Memoires  Secrets,”  October  25,  1778,  Vol.  XII,  p.  161. 

2 Vide  “Franklin  in  Allegory,”  by  Charles  Henry  Hart.  The  Century  Magazine  for 
December,  1890,  p.  202. 

3 Grimm-Diderot  Correspondance,  Vol.  XII,  p.  193. 

4 Montaiglon  and  Duplessis,  p.  247. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  161 

M.  Lalande;  Greuze,  the  painter,  who  had  just  been  initiated  a 
member;  and  Mme.  la  Marquise  de  Villette,  having  previously 
crowned  the  orator,  the  painter  and  Dr.  Franklin,  all  three  placed 
their  crowns  at  the  feet  of  Houdon’s  image  of  Voltaire,  and  the 
Lodge  of  Sorrow  was  ended. 

At  this  time  a living  incident  was  dividing  the  attention  of  Paris 
with  the  dead.  Marie  Antoinette  was  approaching  her  first  ac- 
couchement, and  all  loyal  subjects  were  praying  for  the  birth  of  a 
Dauphin.  Instead,  on  December  19,  1778,  at  Versailles,  was  born 
Marie  Therese  Charlotte,  afterward  Duchesse  d’Angouleme,  who 
escaped  the  guillotine  and  lived  into  the  second  half  of  the  last 
century.  “To  celebrate  the  happy  deliverance  of  the  Queen,”1  the 
Lodge  of  the  Nine  Sisters  arranged  a festival  to  be  held  on  the  9th 
of  March,  1779,  at  the  Royal  Circus,  in  the  Boulevard  Montpar- 
nasse. Bachaumont  says,  “It  is  felt  that  such  a festival  cannot  be 
carried  out  without  the  aid  of  the  Graces,  thus  it  will  become  a 
lodge  of  adoption ; that  is  to  say,  where  the  fair  sex  will  be  admitted 
and  will  form  the  chief  ornament.”  He  then  adds  with  latent  sar- 
casm, “It  is  the  Abbe  Cordier  de  St.  Fermin,  as  usual  burning  with 
zeal  for  the  glory  of  Masonry , who  is  the  inventor,  promoter  and 
director  of  the  fete.”  The  festival  took  place,  and  with  dire  conse- 
quences to  the  lodge,  which  were  averted  largely  through  the  in- 
fluence of  Franklin. 

It  was  arranged  that,  after  the  introduction  of  the  ladies,  the 
1 “Memoires  Secrets,”  February  22,  1779,  Vol.  XIII,  p.  339. 


162 


Life  and  Works  of 


proceedings  should  begin  by  the  initiation  of  a sister,  to  be  followed 
by  addresses,  the  reading  of  poems,  a concert  by  the  most  celebrated 
performers,  a banquet  with  military  music,  and  finally  a ball. 
Everything  had  been  arranged  apparently  to  perfection.  “The 
prettiest  women  and  the  most  distinguished  of  the  court  were  there 
in  crowds,  as  well  as  the  highest  nobles ; but  the  lack  of  order  caused 
the  assemblage  to  degenerate  into  a mob  where  silence  was  unat- 
tainable. An  unlooked-for  incident  added  to  the  confusion.  The 
candidate  for  initiation  was  Mile.  Roily,  niece  of  the  Farmer-Gen- 
eral of  that  name.  She  had  not  taken  her  uncle  and  aunt  into  her 
confidence,  as  they  had  wished  she  should  not  go  to  the  fete,  for 
according  to  their  ideas  it  would  be  too  worldly  an  entertainment 
for  so  young  a person.  She,  however,  had  slipped  in,  closely  veiled, 
with  a lady  who  was  in  the  plot.  What  a surprise  then  for  M.  and 
Mme.  Roily  to  see  their  niece  in  the  midst  of  the  Freemasons!  They 
wanted  to  take  her  away,  and  made  formal  complaint  to  the  offi- 
cials, but  they  were  told  that  this  would  produce  worse  effects  than 
what  had  already  happened,  and  so  they  had  to  swallow  their  indig- 
nation and  let  the  initiation  proceed.”1  This  is  not  saying,  how- 
ever, that  Masonic  mysteries  were  revealed  to  her,  as  they  had  a 
particular  form  for  women.2 

But  such  proceedings  were  too  much  for  the  Grand  Orient,  which 
was  the  mother  lodge  of  all  the  lodges  of  Freemasons  in  France, 

1 “Memoires  Secrets,”  March  14,  1779,  Vol.  XIII,  p.  365. 

2 “Correspondance  Secrete,”  June  15,  1779,  Vol.  VIII,  p.  66. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  163 

with  high  prerogatives  of  jurisdiction  and  disciplinary  powers. 
Charges  against  the  Lodge  of  the  Nine  Sisters  were  brought  by  the 
orator  of  the  Grand  Orient,  in  consequence  of  the  disorders  that  had 
taken  place  at  the  fete,  and  “this  tribunal  of  conscript  brothers, 
without  hearing  the  accused,  pronounced  an  order  to  suppress,  or 
rather,  for  this  is  the  consecrated  term— to  demolish  the  Lodge 
of  IX  Sisters.”1  In  addition  to  this,  the  Venerable  Lalande  was 
suspended  for  six  months,  all  the  other  brothers  for  eighty-one 
days,  including,  of  course,  Houdon  and  Franklin,  who  were  also 
members  of  the  Grand  Orient,  and  Brother  Abbe  Cordier  de  St. 
Fermin,  the  leader  and  organizer  of  the  rout,  for  eighty-one 
months.2 

Other  brothers  suddenly  seemed  to  be  “burning  with  zeal  for  the 
glory  of  Masonry,”  in  the  same  way  as  had  the  Abbe  Cordier.  The 
Lodge  of  Thalia  proposed  giving  a festival  and  holding  a Lodge 
of  Adoption,  similar  to  that  of  the  Nine  Sisters;  but  the  Count  de 
Maurepas,  on  behalf  of  the  King,  forbade  the  assemblage  and 
placed  fifty  guards  at  the  lodge  door  to  prevent  the  guests  from 
entering.  This  prohibition  was  founded  on  the  improprieties  and 
disorders  that  had  happened  at  the  Lodge  of  the  Nine  Sisters,  of 
which  the  King  had  been  advised.3  But,  as  Metra  says,4  “the 
Muses  do  not  submit  themselves  so  easily  to  violation,”  and  the  ac- 

1 “Correspondance  Secrete,”  Vol.  VIII,  p.  66. 

2 “Memoires  Secrets,”  March  22,  1779,  Vol.  XIII,  p.  378. 

8 “Memoires  Secrets,”  March  25,  1779,  Vol.  XIII,  p.  381. 

4 “Correspondance  Secrete,”  June  15,  1779,  Vol.  VIII,  p.  66. 


Life  and  Works  of 


164 

tion  of  the  Grand  Orient  was  not  accepted  without  protest.  The 
Freemasons  were  furious  and  the  Lodge  of  the  Nine  Sisters  refused 
to  acquiesce  in  the  order  of  demolition  and  suspension  and  threat- 
ened a schism.  The  lodge  held  several  solemn  conclaves  upon  the 
subject,  and  finally  it  was  determined  that,  as  the  festival  had  been 
a public  one,  “of  which  all  Paris  was  informed/’  it  was  necessary 
“to  disabuse  the  mind  of  all  Paris,”  and  a memorial,  addressed  to 
the  profane  as  well  as  to  the  illumined,  was  ordered  to  be  written  in 
a manner  that  could  be  read  and  understood  by  all  the  world.  This 
was  too  bold  a stand  for  the  Worshipful  Master  Lalande,  who  was 
dubbed  in  this  relation  “a  pusillanimous  and  timid  man,”1  so  he 
resigned.  The  Nine  Sisters,  not  so  easily  conquered,  pleaded  to  the 
Grand  Orient  that  its  action  had  been  misunderstood  and  miscon- 
strued, and  great  injustice  had  been  done  the  lodge  and  the  Masonic 
fraternity,  with  the  result  that  after  many  pourparlers , the  Grand 
Orient  on  the  21st  of  May,  1779,  rescinded  its  orders  of  demolish- 
ment  of  the  lodge  and  suspension  of  its  members  and  restored  both 
to  good  standing.  At  this  time  the  proposed  memorial  had  not  been 
issued,  but  it  had  been  printed,  and  there  was  great  opposition  to  its 
distribution  after  the  restoration  by  the  Grand  Orient;  but  it  was 
held  that,  as  it  had  been  prepared  rather  for  “the  justification  of  the 
lodge  before  the  public  than  for  the  Grand  Orient,  the  justice  just 
granted  it  by  the  Grand  Orient  was  not  made  sufficiently  clear  to 
the  profane,  whom  it  was  necessary  to  illumine.”  Bachaumont  says 
1 “Memoires  Secrets,”  May  io,  1779,  Vol.  XIV,  p.  531. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  165 

of  this  memorial,1  “It  is  of  an  entirely  new  kind,  like  the  subject, 
and  is  accompanied  by  pieces  in  prose  and  in  verse.” 

It  was  at  this  critical  period  that  Franklin  was  elected  to  succeed 
Lalande  as  Venerable,  or  Worshipful  Master,  of  the  Lodge  of  the 
Nine  Sisters.  The  election  took  place  on  May  20,  1779.  A week 
later  Bachaumont  records  the  event.2  “It  is  wonderful  to  see  Mr. 
Franklin,  in  spite  of  the  great  and  numerous  matters  he  is  bothered 
with,  finding  sufficient  time  to  occupy  himself  seriously  with  useless 
and  frivolous  things,3  and  attending  the  assemblies  of  the  Free- 
masons like  the  most  idle  brother.  On  Thursday  last  he  was  elected 
Venerable  of  the  Lodge  of  Nine  Sisters,  and  a deputation  went  to 
Passy  to  notify  him.  This  election  falls  in  very  happily  at  this 
critical  time,  when  a violent  persecution  has  been  aroused  against 
the  lodge  on  account  of  the  memorial  in  its  favor  spread  abroad  in 
the  past  few  days.  The  Keeper  of  the  Seals  has  ordered  M.  le  Noir 
to  prevent  its  distribution  and  to  have  searching  inquiries  made  to 
discover  the  printer,  which  is  matter  for  the  exercise  of  zeal  by  the 
new  Venerable.” 

The  memorial  was  written  by  the  poet  Nicholas  Bricaire  de  la 
Dixmerie,  who  was  orator  of  the  Lodge  of  the  Nine  Sisters,  and 
signed  by  him,  by  Comte  de  Gibelin,  the  secretary,  and  by  Comte 
Persan,  the  master  of  ceremonies.  It  sets  forth  that  “this  society 
has  been  in  existence  barely  three  years,  and  its  work  embraces  two 

1 “Memoires  Secrets,”  May  23,  1779,  Vol.  XIV,  p.  69.  8 “Jouer  4 \a  Chapelle.” 

2“Memoiies  Secrets,”  May  26,  1779,  Vol.  XIV,  p.  73. 


1 66 


Life  and  Works  of 


objects— Freemasonry,  which  brings  men  together,  and  cultivation 
of  the  arts,  science  and  letters,  which  enlightens  them.”  This  is 
followed  by  an  enumeration  of  some  of  its  most  distinguished  mem- 
bers, Voltaire,  Franklin,  Houdon,  Lalande,  Cailhava,  de  Fontanes, 
Imbert,  Vernet,  Greuze,  Piccini  and  others.  The  memorial  then 
proves  the  exactitude  of  the  lodge  in  following  the  Masonic  work, 
and  its  zeal  in  practising  works  of  benevolence.  It  gives  an  account 
of  the  object  of  the  festival  of  the  9th  of  March,  and  of  what  tran- 
spired, and  asserts  that  nothing  reprehensible  occurred.  It  refutes 
all  imputations  against  the  lodge,  exposes  the  injustice  of  the 
accusations  and  shows  the  illegality  of  the  judgment  that  was  passed 
upon  it  and  its  members.1 

The  lodge,  having  justified  itself  from  the  accusations  and  rig- 
orous rulings  against  it  by  the  Grand  Orient,  proceeded  to  celebrate 
the  event  by  another  fete,  and  the  circular  announcing  it  has  been 
preserved  by  Franklin.  It  is  entitled,  “Fete  Academique  pour  la 
Cloture  de  la  Loge  des  Neuf-Sceurs  au  Wauxhal  de  la  Foire  Saint 
Germain  le  Mercredi,  1 1 Aout,  5779.”  It  did  not  take  place  until  a 
week  later,  however,  owing  to  the  indisposition  of  several  members 
who  were  suffering  from  la  grippe , and  “the  ladies,  without  whom 
there  could  not  be  a perfect  celebration,”  were  admitted;  but,  to 
avoid  confusion  and  disorder,  there  was  not  any  dancing;  it  was 
purely  an  academic  spectacle  interspersed  with  music  and  ad- 
dresses. “Dr.  Franklin,  though  having  accepted  the  post  of  Vener- 

1 “Memoires  Secrets,”  May  30,  1779,  Vol.  XIV,  p.  79, 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  167 

able,  made  the  condition  of  not  holding  himself  bound  to  discharge 
its  functions  with  the  scrupulous  exactitude  devolving  on  the  office ; 
and  as  it  was,  above  all,  his  name  that  it  was  desired  to  add  to  the 
roll  of  the  grand  officers  of  the  Lodge  of  the  Nine  Sisters,  he  was 
left  free  to  absent  himself  whenever  his  important  occupations  de- 
manded it.  This  assembly  was  deprived  of  his  presence,  his  place 
being  filled  by  the  First  Warden,  the  Comte  de  Milly ; and  the  gal- 
lery of  the  lodge-room  was  decorated  by  examples  of  the  works  of 
the  brethren.  Houdon  in  sculpture  and  Greuze  in  painting  shone 
among  the  others.”1 

A month  later  the  whole  civilized  world  was  startled  by  what 
was  then,  and  has  remained  since,  the  greatest  and  most  marvelous 
naval  battle  recorded,  the  fight  between  the  Bonhomme-Richard 
and  the  Serapis , when  the  infant  navy  of  the  United  States  won  the 
circlet  she  has  never  ceased  to  wear.  The  following  spring  Paul 
Jones  visited  Paris,  where  he  was  acclaimed  a hero,  and  the  Lodge 
of  the  Nine  Sisters,  to  which  he  had  made  application,  on  August 
16,  1779,  for  affiliation,  was  not  backward  in  doing  him  honor.  As 
has  been  told,  it  engaged  Houdon  to  make  his  bust,  and  he  was 
initiated  to  membership  in  the  lodge  on  the  1st  of  May.  Here  is 
what  Bachaumont  says  of  this  occasion:2 

All  the  world  knows  that  the  celebrated  Paul  Jones  was  a sailor,  fol- 
lowing in  the  footsteps  of  our  greatest  characters  in  this  line;  but  it  was 

1 “Memoires  Secrets,”  August  25,  1779,  Vol.  XIV,  p.  183. 

2 “Memoires  Secrets,”  July  18,  1780,  Vol.  XV,  p.  250. 


1 68 


Life  and  Works  of 


not  known  that  he  courted  Apollo  before  he  enrolled  himself  under  the 
banner  of  Mars.  This  is  what  we  learn  from  a discourse  addressed  to 
him  by  the  first  Orator  of  the  Lodge  of  the  Nine  Sisters,  M.  de  la  Dix- 
merie,  on  Monday,  May  I,  1780.  ...  In  this  discourse  Brother  de  la 
Dixmerie  recalls  the  origin  of  Freemasonry,  which  he  connects  with  an- 
cient chivalry,  the  latter  itself  taking  title  from  the  ancient  initiated. 
The  Lodge  of  the  Nine  Sisters  desired  to  imitate  this  illustrious  mother 
which  received,  with  as  much  joy  as  solemnity,  those  among  its  valiants 
who  had  accomplished  some  adventure.  The  brothers  were  assembled, 
and  a solemn  lodge  was  convoked  for  the  ceremony  of  initiating  Paul 
Jones.  . . . The  address,  a little  masterpiece  in  its  way,  for  which  one 
must  feel  grateful  to  the  author,  as  in  it  he  resists  the  spirit  of  blind  dis- 
paragement which  is  often  launched  against  the  English,  and  seeing  that 
he  would  heighten  his  Hero’s  fame  better  in  giving  the  justice  that  is 
due  to  these  proud  islanders,  has  placed  the  valor  of  Jones  and  of  his 
rival  Pearson  on  an  equal  footing.  After  the  eulogy  a quatrain,  also  by 
M.  de  la  Dixmerie,  was  read,  which  is  original  enough  to  be  preserved. 

“Jones,  resourceful  in  battle,  when  met, 

Acts  toward  enemies,  so  ’tis  said, 

As  acts  toward  us  a clever  coquette ; 

One  thinks  to  take  him  and  is  taken  instead.” 

It  is  to  this  discourse  that  Jones  refers  in  his  letter  to  the  Com- 
tesse  de  la  Vendahl  of  June  7,  1780,  in  which  he  regrets  that  the 
lock  of  his  hair  he  incloses  her  is  eighteen  inches  shorter  than  it 
was.  “Before  I had  the  honor  to  see  you  I wished  to  comply  with 
the  invitation  of  my  lodge.1  I say  this  in  answer  to  your  question 
on  reading  the  address  with  which  I was  honored.” 


1 To  sit  to  Houdon  for  his  bust. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  169 

The  next  year  the  much  hoped  for  national  event  occurred,  a son 
was  born  to  the  Queen,  and  in  the  Franklin  papers1  we  find  the 
notice  that  was  sent  to  him,  announcing  a celebration  by  the  Lodge 
of  the  Nine  Sisters  of  the  glorious  event— the  birth  of  a Dauphin 
and  the  return  to  health  of  the  Queen— to  be  given  on  Monday,  the 
14th  of  January,  1782,  in  its  “Local,  rue  Coqueron.”  There  were 
again  a Reception  of  Adoption,  concert,  address,  music,  banquet, 
a comedy  in  two  acts,  and  a ball.  Subscriptions  were  fixed  at  eigh- 
teen livres,  for  which  each  member  could  take  a lady,  but  her  name 
had  to  be  registered  with  the  secretary,  Gaucher  the  engraver,  at  the 
time  of  subscription.  It  is  to  be  assumed  that  nothing  untoward 
happened  on  this  occasion,  as  Bachaumont,  Metra  and  the  other 
contemporary  chroniclers  of  scandal  make  no  mention  of  it  what- 
ever. It  may  be  recalled  that  a special  day— May  13,  1782— was 
fixed  for  delivery,  by  the  Minister  from  France  to  the  Congress 
assembled  in  Philadelphia,  of  a letter  from  his  Most  Christian 
Majesty  Louis  XVI,  announcing  to  his  “well-beloved  allies”  the 
birth  of  a Dauphin,  which  was  made  a most  elaborate  affair.2  It 
was  announced  to  the  American  army  by  General  Orders  on  May 
28th,  at  Newburg  on  the  Hudson ; and  three  days  later  Washington 
gave  a commemorative  dinner  at  which  thirteen  toasts  were  drunk, 
followed  by  an  exhibition  of  fireworks  and  a ball  to  close  the  fes- 
tivities. Later,  in  July,  the  Chevalier  de  la  Luzerne,  at  Philadel- 

1 American  Philosophical  Society. 

2 “Pennsylvania  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography,”  Vol.  XXIX,  p.  497. 


Life  and  Works  of 


170 

phia,  had  a magnificent  celebration  of  the  occasion  with  a ball,  at 
which  both  Washington  and  Rochambeau  were  present.  These 
fete-days,  when  looked  back  upon,  seem  almost  as  heralds  of  the 
misfortunes  that  were  so  soon  to  overwhelm  France. 

The  next  important  incident  that  brought  the  Lodge  of  the  Nine 
Sisters  to  the  front  was  the  signing  of  the  definitive  treaty  of  peace, 
on  the  3d  of  September,  1783,  between  Great  Britain  and  her  re- 
volted colonies.  Her  Worshipful  Master  had  occupied  the  leading 
position  in  the  negotiations  which  concluded  the  treaty,  and  to 
honor  him  the  lodge  gave,  on  the  17th  of  December,  a public  fete 
commemorative  of  peace.  Franklin’s  farewell  meeting  with  the 
Lodge  of  the  Nine  Sisters  was  on  May  4,  1785,  and  the  following 
month  he  bade  good-bye  to  France,  but  his  influence  did  not  end 
with  the  closing  of  his  personal  intercourse  with  the  people  with 
whom  he  had  lived  for  more  than  eight  years  on  terms  of  the  most 
familiar  intercourse,  so  that  the  last  action  of  the  Lodge  of  the  Nine 
Sisters  that  we  have  to  note  was  a greeting  to  him  across  the  seas. 
Bachaumont  records,  under  date  of  March  29,  1786, 1 “The  Society 
known  under  the  name  of  the  Lodge  of  the  Nine  Sisters,  composed 
of  savants,  artists  and  literary  men,  and  presided  over  by  Benjamin 
Franklin,  the  year  following  the  one  we  had  the  misfortune  to  lose 
Voltaire,  wishing  to-day  to  show  publicly  its  admiration  of  the 
celebrated  American,  whose  presence  they  may  no  longer  hope  for, 
proposes  to  the  Arts  and  Eloquence,  two  Prizes  which  will  be  two 

1 “Memoires  Secrets,”  Vol.  XXXI,  p.  214. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  i7i 

medals  of  gold,  each  of  the  value  of  600  livres.  The  prize  of 
eloquence  shall  be  given  for  a eulogy  in  praise  of  Benjamin  Frank- 
lin living,  requiring  a half-hour  in  its  reading.  The  art  prize  shall 
be  given  to  an  allegorical  drawing,  height  two  feet  and  width  one 
foot  and  a half,  representing  the  services  rendered  by  Benjamin 
Franklin  to  science  and  to  American  Liberty.  All  persons,  except- 
ing members  of  the  Lodge  of  the  Nine  Sisters,  may  compete.  The 
competition  is  open  only  until  the  last  day  of  January,  1787,  and  the 
prizes  will  be  distributed  in  a solemn  assembly  on  the  first  Monday 
in  May,  1787.” 

These  proposed  medals,  if  they  were  ever  awarded,  of  which  we 
have  no  knowledge,  were  not  the  only  medallic  distinctions  con- 
ferred on  Franklin  by  this  lodge.  Marvin,  in  his  painstaking  work 
on  Masonic  medals,1  notes  four  medals  issued  by  the  Lodge  of  the 
Nine  Sisters,  two  of  which  bear  the  bust  of  Franklin,  one  engraved 
by  Pingret  and  issued  to  commemorate  Franklin’s  initiation  as  a 
Master  Mason  of  the  lodge,  in  1778,  which  was  reissued  in  1829; 
the  other  engraved  by  Bernier  and  issued  to  commemorate  peace  in 
September,  1783.  The  lodge  also  issued  two  other  medals:  an 
earlier  one  in  1776,  the  year  of  its  incorporation,  and  a later  one  in 
honor  of  Comte  de  Milly,  its  president. 

The  life  of  Freemasonry  in  France  was  drawing  to  a close,  and 
with  the  Revolution  virtually  ceased  to  exist.  In  1806  the  Lodge  of 
the  Nine  Sisters  was  revived,  however,  in  which  Houdon  took  a 

1 “The  Medals  of  the  Masonic  Fraternity,”  by  W.  T.  R.  Marvin,  Boston,  1880,  p.  40. 


iy2  Jean  Antoine  Houdon 

very  active  part;  and  Besuchet,  writing  in  1829,1  says,  “This  lodge 
still  exists  and,  faithful  to  the  principles  of  Freemasonry,  it  always 
wished  to  keep  clear  of  so-called  higher  Masonic  associations.  It 
continued  as  a symbolic  lodge,  disdaining  the  title  of  Capitular 
lodge  or  Capitular  and  Areopagitic  lodge,  that  is  to  say,  of  a lodge 
serving  as  source  for  a Chapter  or  a Council  of  the  Thirtieth  De- 
gree.” It  had  a fitful  existence  until  the  Revolution  of  February, 
1848,  when  it  received  its  coup  de  grace. 

1 “Precis  Historique  de  l’Ordre  de  la  Franc-Magonnerie,”  par  J.  C.  B.,  Vol.  I,  p.  62. 


CHAPTER  IX 

1781-1785 

STATUES  OF  TOURVILLE  AND  OF  “LA  FRILEUSE”— HOUDON’S  REVIVAL 
OF  THE  ART  OF  CASTING  IN  BRONZE 

r^HE  Salon  of  1781  was  Houdon’s  great  year  and  the  date 
which  helps  to  recall  the  most  brilliant  memories  con- 
nected  with  his  name.  There  were  to  be  found  the  busts 
in  marble  of  the  Due  de  Praslin;  of  Tronchin,  doctor  of  medicine; 
of  Mile.  Odeoud,  of  Geneva;  and  those  in  plaster  of  the  Princesse 
d’Ashkoff;  Mme.  de  Serilly;  Quesnay,  the  physician;  Gerbier,  the 
distinguished  advocate;  Palissot;  and,  finally,  Paul  Jones.  His 
three  principal  works,  however,  were  the  “Diana,”  exhibited  at  his 
own  studio,  and  the  statues  of  Tourville  and  Voltaire,  shown  at  the 
Salon. 

For  a long  time  it  had  been  matter  of  surprise  that  the  govern- 
ment had  failed  to  commission  Houdon  for  any  of  the  four  statues 
annually  ordered,  and  intended  to  form  eventually  a collection  rep- 
resenting all  the  illustrious  men  of  France.  A critic  of  the  day 
went  so  far  as  to  ask  Houdon,  whether  the  cause  of  such  neglect,  on 
the  part  of  the  Ministry,  was  known  to  him.  Pie  vouchsafed  no 
reply;  but  he  had  now  won  too  great  celebrity  not  to  take  sooner  or 


73 


Life  and  Works  of 


174 

later,  without  any  effort  or  intrigue,  a place  of  high  distinction 
among  the  group  of  official  artists.  In  the  year  1778  the  public 
learned  with  great  satisfaction  that  Houdon  had  been  commissioned 
to  execute  a statue  of  Tourville.  He  took  two  years  to  complete  the 
statue,  choosing  to  perpetuate  in  marble  that  incident,  in  the  Ad- 
miral’s career,  when  he  exhibits  to  his  crew  the  order  of  the  King 
to  engage  at  Cape  La  Hogue.  In  one  hand  the  Admiral  grasps  and 
exhibits  the  order  unfolded,  in  the  other  he  holds  his  naked  sword, 
pointing  with  it  to  the  signature  of  the  King.  In  this  figure  of  the 
gallant  Admiral,  Houdon  was  to  essay  for  a second  time  the  vivid 
representation  of  one  long  since  deceased,  and  to  endeavor,  from 
picture  and  story,  to  evolve  a satisfactory  and  convincing  figure.  It 
was  shown  in  the  Salon  of  1781,  but  contemporary  criticism  does 
not  accord  it  very  high  praise.  Stress  is  laid  upon  the  perfection 
with  which  the  details  of  the  costume  are  carried  out,  showing  again 
Houdon’s  perfect  mastery  over  his  material,  but  the  general  effect 
is  judged  as  being  too  theatrical;  a hat  with  plumes  that  the  Ad- 
miral wears  coming  in  for  considerable  adverse  comment.  Certain 
accessories  introduced— the  prow  of  a vessel,  with  guns  protruding 
— are  harshly  criticized,  and  the  suggestion  is  made  that  an  anchor 
or  a coil  of  rope  would  have  been  sufficient  for  purposes  of  illusion. 

We  note  here  something  of  the  same  overcrowding  of  symbols  as 
in  the  case  of  Washington’s  statue,  although  there  the  lifelike  char- 
acter and  distinction  of  the  figure  sweep  aside  these  minor  faults. 
But  it  is  evident  that  the  statue  of  Tourville  must  have  lacked  the 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  175 

inspiration  displayed  in  Houdon’s  noble  bust  of  Moliere,  which 
Voltaire  is  said  to  have  kissed  on  bended  knee  when  he  himself  was 
tottering  to  his  final  end.  Yes,  portraiture  and  lifelike  resemblance, 
with  just  the  touch  of  idealization  that  true  art  demands,  were  the 
distinguishing  traits  of  Houdon’s  genius;  and  that  splendid  galaxy 
of  likenesses  scattered  over  Europe  and  America  is  its  triumphant 
vindication.  We  would  not  change  the  result  for  whole  galleries 
of  the  finest  imaginative  work,  if  through  that  we  were  to  be  denied 
these  masterpieces  of  living  marble  and  bronze,  forever  perpetu- 
ating Houdon’s  fame. 

The  plaster  model  for  a “Baigneuse,”  “to  be  executed  in  marble,” 
mentioned  in  the  Salon  catalogue  of  1775,  was  carried  out  in 
1782,  and  a marble  bearing  Houdon’s  name,  but  not  his  sig- 
nature, is  in  a New  York  collection.  Lady  Dilke,  who  saw  it  at 
“Bagatelle,”  writes  quite  enthusiastically  about  it,  and  in  the  large- 
paper  edition  of  her  “French  Architects  and  Sculptors  of  the  Eigh- 
teenth Century”  gives  a reproduction  of  it.  At  the  time  she  saw  it, 
and  as  the  illustration  shows,  the  statue  occupied  a grotto,  evidently 
constructed  for  the  purpose  of  exhibiting  it  to  the  best  advantage. 
The  figure  is  seated,  nude,  and  with  one  foot  about  to  be  dipped  in 
the  water.  Since  its  removal  from  such  appropriate  surroundings 
and  its  installation  upon  a pedestal  in  a gallery,  the  effect  is  very 
much  diminished,  and  the  writers,  who  have  seen  it,  class  it  as  a 
very  inferior  production  for  any  other  purpose  than  the  plein  air, 
for  which  it  was  originally  intended.  There  seems  to  have  been  an 


Life  and  Works  of 


i7  6 

attempt  recently— perhaps  an  accidental  mistake— to  identify  the 
figure  as  having  formed  part  of  the  group,  “Female  Bathing  and 
Black  Slave,”  exhibited  at  the  Salon  of  1783,  the  principal  figure 
of  which  was  of  marble,  while  the  slave  was  reproduced  in  lead  to 
carry  out  the  semblance  of  a negress.  This  fountain,  originally  in 
the  garden  of  the  Due  de  Chartres,  at  Monceaux,  near  Paris,  was 
destroyed  during  the  French  Revolution,  and  no  trace  of  it  exists, 
nor  is  there  any  record  of  it  after  that  period. 

To  the  Salon  of  1783  our  artist  also  contributed  a “Diana,”  in 
bronze,  and  a new  work,  a figure  in  marble  of  life  size,  known  as 
“La  Frileuse”  or  “The  Shivering  One.”  The  “Diana”  has  been 
described  already  in  a previous  chapter.  The  bronze  reproduction 
here  mentioned  was  that  made  for  Girardot  de  Marigny,  at  whose 
house  it  was  exhibited.  “La  Frileuse”  became  one  of  the  most 
popular  of  Houdon’s  productions.  “There  was  hardly  a country 
house  without  a plaster  cast  of  it  ornamenting  some  niche  on  its 
facade,  or  standing  conspicuously  in  the  garden.”1  Houdon  him- 
self reproduced  it  more  than  once.  At  the  Salon  of  1791,  it  was 
shown  in  bronze,  and  this  particular  figure  was  acquired  by  the 
King  of  Prussia.  At  the  Salon  of  1793,  a small  “Frileuse”  was 
exhibited.  This  may  be  the  one  now  at  the  Louvre,  a nude  figure, 
without  any  drapery  over  the  shoulders,  but  in  the  same  attitude  as 
the  semi-draped  one,  the  arms  clutching  the  figure  itself,  instead 

1 Montaiglon  and  Duplessis,  p.  265. 


TT/1  yf\  ) TT  TT/i  T®  TTT  ) hfl 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  177 

of  the  drapery.  In  both,  the  idea  of  the  human  form  shrinking 
from  the  cold  is  admirably  expressed.  It  is  really  intended  for  an 
allegory  of  “Winter,”  for  later  Houdon  gave  it  a companion  in 
his  “Summer,”  which  was  not  exhibited  at  the  Salon.  The  two 
marbles,  being  pendants,  were  in  the  possession  of  M.  Creuze  de 
Lesser  in  1829,  and  from  him  passed  to  the  Museum  at  Montpellier, 
where  they  have  remained  ever  since.  This  “Summer”  was  shown 
at  Houdon’s  studio,  but  received  little  attention  from  the  critics, 
so  that  all  his  other  contributions  to  the  Salon  in  1783  were 
busts:  a bust  of  La  Fontaine,  the  model  of  which  had  been  made 
in  1781,  for  President  Aubry;  and  of  living  persons,  Mile.  Rob- 
ert, daughter  of  the  Painter  to  the  King;  and  the  surgeon  Louis, 
the  real  inventor,  it  is  said,  of  the  tragic  instrument  ascribed  to  Dr. 
Guillotin.  This  latter  bust,  we  believe,  is  now  in  the  Paris  Academy 
of  Medicine.  Then  a bust  of  Buffon,  the  great  naturalist,  made  for 
the  Empress  of  Russia.  This  bust,  which  from  a contemporaneous 
account  was  probably  the  best  in  the  group,  was  equaled  only  by  the 
model  of  the  bust  of  La  Rive,  the  marble  of  which  was  exhibited  at 
the  Salon  following  (1785).  The  celebrated  actor  is  represented 
in  the  character  of  Brutus.  Barere,  speaking  of  this  bust  in  his 
“Memoirs,”  Vol.  IV,  p.  247,  says,  “It  is  not  merely  a striking 
likeness,  it  is  one  of  the  most  expressive  heads  imaginable,  the  finest 
perhaps  that  Houdon  ever  executed.”  It  now  forms  a part,  as  it 
should,  of  the  splendid  collection  of  busts  at  the  Theatre-Francais. 


i7« 


Life  and  Works  of 


It  seems  appropriate  at  this  point  to  draw  attention  to  another 
great  service  rendered  the  fine  arts  by  Houdon.  We  allude  to  the 
great  progress  brought  about  by  him  in  the  art  of  casting  statues  in 
bronze.  When  he  first  began  at  it  and  bravely  undertook  both 
sculpture  and  casting,  this  last  art  was  little  practised  and  often 
proved  ruinous.  Casting  in  bronze,  an  operation  requiring  a great 
expenditure  of  time  as  well  as  money,  had  in  his  day  produced  but 
few  satisfying  works,  and  these  attended  with  infinite  trouble  and 
frequent  bankruptcy.  It  certainly  required  great  perseverance  on 
the  part  of  Houdon,  and  still  more  devotion  to  the  arts,  for  him  to 
risk  his  savings  and  his  modest  independence,  so  much  prized,  in  so 
hazardous  an  undertaking.  His  own  words  describe  best  his  strug- 
gles and  the  many  difficulties  which  he  succeeded  in  overcoming. 

“In  summing  up  a description  of  my  work,  I can  truthfully  say 
that  I have  occupied  myself  with  but  two  studies  which  have  ex- 
tended over  my  entire  life,  to  which  I sacrificed  all  that  I gained, 
and  which  I should  have  rendered  of  greater  use  to  my  country  had 
I been  either  seconded  by  some  one,  or  possessed  of  fortune;  these 
studies  were  Anatomy  and  the  art  of  Casting. 

“Occupying  for  a long  while  the  workshops  of  the  Municipality, 
I profited  by  this  to  be  both  Statuary  and  Caster  or  Founder.  In 
modern  days  these  two  arts  have  always  been  exercised  by  separate 
persons,  and  to  revive  this  useful  art  in  my  own  country,  — an  art 
which  might  become  lost,  those  having  exercised  it  being  dead 
when  I took  it  up,  — I constructed  furnaces,  I trained  workmen, 
and,  after  numerous  unsuccessful  and  expensive  essays,  I succeeded 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  179 

in  casting  two  statues  of  Diana,  one  of  which  I still  possess,  and  my 
‘Frileuse.’ 

“Turned  out  of  these  workshops,  in  1787,  by  Breteuil,  on  three 
weeks’  notice,  I purchased  a house  opposite,  constructed  new  fur- 
naces, and  here  cast  my  Apollo.  Since  the  Revolution,  not  receiving 
orders,  nearly  all  my  works  being  ordered  and  paid  for  by  foreign- 
ers, and  wishing  to  keep  up  my  workshop  and  prevent  my  precious 
workmen  from  carrying  their  talents  abroad,  I took  from  the  prin- 
cipal of  a moderate  fortune  sufficient  to  continue  work  of  this  kind 
and  cast  the  busts  of  great  men,  Moliere,  Buffon,  Voltaire  and 
Rousseau.  Always  spurred  on  by  love  of  my  art,  by  the  desire  to 
leave  to  posterity  an  enduring  monument  and  to  give  young  students 
a subject  for  study,  although  having  a family  to  support,  I cast  my 
large  ‘Ecorche,’  skinless  figure,  in  1792. 

“When  it  was  desired  to  cast  the  statue  for  the  Pantheon,  it  was 
in  my  workshop  they  were  obliged  to  seek  for  a caster,  and  they 
selected  a man  of  great  merit  but  one  who  had  always  worked  under 
me  and  who  owed  to  my  advice,  my  means  and  perseverance,  his 
knowledge  of  the  art,  for  on  coming  to  me  he  was  a mere  moulder. 

“This,  Citizen,  is  the  narrative  you  have  required  of  me.  As  a 
result,  I may  be  considered  under  the  double  aspect  of  Statuary  and 
Founder.  Under  the  first,  I can  create,  and  under  the  second,  I can 
execute  in  a durable  manner  the  creations  of  others,  for  I repeat, 
without  fear  of  contradiction,  that  I am  the  sole  artist  uniting  these 
two  species  of  knowledge.”1 

1 Letter  to  the  Citizen  Bachelier  of  the  20th  Vendemiaire,  Year  III. 


i8o 


Life  and  Works  of 


The  accounts  of  the  Salon  of  1785  are  somewhat  meagre.  Busts 
of  the  King  of  Sweden,  Prince  Henry  of  Prussia,  M.  le  Pelletier  de 
Mortfontaine,  and  M.  de  Bire,  are  in  the  catalogue,  and  besides  the 
La  Rive  bust  in  marble,  one  of  M.  Le  Noir.  This  last  is  spoken  of 
in  very  high  terms  by  art  writers  of  the  period.  It  figured  at  the 
sale  of  Houdon’s  effects  in  1828,  but  since  then  seems  to  have  been 
lost  sight  of. 

For  some  inexplicable  reason  a number  of  portrait-busts  were 
entered  at  this  Salon  by  Houdon  under  a single  number,  so  that  we 
are  unable  to  specify  them ; but  among  them  was  undoubtedly  the 
superb  marble  bust  of  Condorcet,  signed  “houdon  f.  1785,”  now  in 
the  hall  of  the  American  Philosophical  Society  at  Philadelphia, 
where  it  was  placed  by  William  Short,  who  was  Secretary  of  Lega- 
tion to  Jefferson  when  he  was  in  France,  and  subsequently  became 
Charge  d’Affaires.  The  history  of  the  bust  as  given  by  Short,  in  a 
letter  to  Jefferson,  is  curious  and  most  interesting.  He  writes,  Oc- 
tober 21,  1819: 

“Apropos  of  Philosophers : you  recollect,  without  doubt,  the  mar- 
ble bust  of  Condorcet,  which  stood  on  a marble  table  in  the  Salon 
of  the  Hotel  de  la  Rochefoucauld.  When  it  was  determined  no 
longer  to  receive  him  in  that  house,  it  was  thought  unbecoming  to 
keep  the  bust  there.  The  grandchildren,  who  never  liked  him, 
availed  themselves  of  this  to  have  the  bust  transported  to  the  lumber 
store-room  without  consulting  the  old  lady,  whose  leave  was  gener- 
ally asked  on  every  occasion.  She  passed  this  over  in  silence,  how- 


IBUJIFIFCQW 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  181 

ever,  and  never  made  a remark  or  enquiry  as  to  the  disappearance 
of  the  bust.  It  had  cost  her  a great  effort  to  signify  to  the  original 
that  his  presence  had  become  disagreeable;  she  had  really  a paren- 
tal affection  for  him  and  had  given  him  a remarkable  proof  of  this 
at  the  time  of  his  marriage.1  On  her  death,  I asked  this  bust  of  the 
granddaughter,  who  gave  it  to  me  with  great  pleasure.  It  has  been 
on  its  way  here  ever  since  I left  France,  in  1795,  and  has  passed 
through  as  many  casus  and  discrimina  rerum  as  Eneas  himself,  or 
perhaps  it  was  Ulysses,  on  its  way.  It  has  finally  arrived  and  is  at 
present  placed,  in  the  Philosophical  Hall,  in  the  most  suitable  com- 
pany—the  busts  of  Franklin,  yourself,  Turgot.” 

A month  before  this  last  exhibition  had  opened,  our  sculptor  had 
set  sail  for  America.  We  shall  follow  him  across  the  Atlantic  in 
the  next  chapter,  giving  the  history  of  his  visit  to  General  Washing- 
ton at  Mount  Vernon,  and  of  the  splendid  artistic  results  therefrom, 
both  for  his  own  fame  and  for  the  admiration  of  future  generations. 

1 Condorcet  married,  in  1786,  Sophie,  sister  of  General  Grouchy,  who  was  noted  for 
her  beauty. 


CHAPTER  X 

1785 


WASHINGTON-HOUDON’S  VISIT  TO  AMERICA— DOMICILED  AT  MOUNT 
VERNON  FOR  A FORTNIGHT— MASK  AND  BUST  FROM  LIFE- 
STATUE  AT  RICHMOND,  VA. 

E have  now  reached  the  event  in  Houdon’s  career  that 
was  to  make  his  name  a household  name  among  the  cul- 
tivated people  of  this  land.  On  Tuesday,  the  22d  day  of 
June,  1784,  the  Legislature  of  Virginia  resolved,  “That  the  Execu- 
tive be  requested  to  take  measures  for  procuring  a statue  of  General 
Washington,  to  be  of  the  finest  marble  and  the  best  workmanship, 
with  the  following  inscription  on  its  pedestal : 

The  General  Assembly  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Virginia 
Have  caused  this  statue  to  be  erected 
As  a monument  of  affection  and  gratitude  to 
George  Washington; 

Who, 

Uniting  to  the  Endowments  of  the  Hero  the  Virtues  of  the  Patriot 
And  exerting  both  in  establishing  the  liberties  of  his  country, 

Has  rendered  his  name  dear  to  his  fellow  citizens 
And  given  the  World  an  immortal  example 
Of  true  Glory.1 


1 Hickey’s  “Constitution  of  the  United  States,”  Philadelphia,  1847,  p.  206. 

182 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  183 

This  action  was  destined  to  come  to  fuller  fruition  than  the  action 
of  Congress,  proposed  a year  earlier,  “that  an  equestrian  statue 
should  be  erected  to  General  Washington.”  Yet  it  was  the  anticipa- 
tion of  making  this  equestrian  statue  for  Congress  that  enabled 
Jefferson  to  secure  the  services  of  Houdon,  then  the  greatest  living 
statuary,  and  without  a peer  since,  to  model  the  pedestrian  statue 
for  the  State  of  Virginia.  At  its  very  outset,  however,  the  project 
was  beset  with  financial  difficulties.  The  ruinous  War  of  the  Revo- 
lution was  ended  and  had  left  exhausted  treasuries  in  the  indi- 
vidual States  and  in  the  General  Government  which  sorely  needed 
replenishing.  This  was  a difficult  task  which,  at  times,  seemed  as 
though  it  would  be  an  impossible  one.  A week  after  the  passage  of 
the  above  resolution,  the  Treasurer  of  the  State  of  Virginia  was 
directed  to  pay  to  the  order  of  the  Executive,  “out  of  the  first  money 
that  shall  arise  under  the  law  for  recruiting  this  State’s  quota  of 
men  to  serve  in  the  Continental  army,”  any  sum  he  may  direct  for 
the  purpose  of  procuring  a statue  of  General  Washington.1  The 
Treasurer  communicated  this  resolution  to  the  Governor,  inform- 
ing him  at  the  same  time,  “There  is  no  money  in  the  Treasury  at 
present  arising  from  this  law,  and  very  uncertain  when  any  may 
come  in.”2  He  therefore  asked  advice  of  the  Governor,  if  he 
thought  it  proper  that  the  money  should  be  taken  from  any  other 
fund.  This  plan  the  Governor  evidently  sanctioned,  for  on  July  1, 
1784,  prior  to  the  reception  of  the  Treasurer’s  letter,  Governor 

1 Calendar  of  State  Papers  of  Virginia,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  595.  2 Ibid.,  p.  597. 


Life  and  Works  of 


184 

Harrison  wrote  to  Charles  Willson  Peale,  the  eminent  portrait- 
painter  at  Philadelphia: 

The  Assembly  of  the  state  have  voted  a statue  of  our  late  worthy 
commander-in-chief,  General  Washington,  and  that  I may  be  enabled  to 
discharge  the  pleasing  trust  reposed  in  me  in  the  most  perfect  manner 
possible,  I have  to  request  the  favor  of  you  to  draw  a full-length  picture 
of  him  immediately,  and,  as  soon  as  it  is  sufficiently  dry,  to  have  it  packed 
up  in  the  most  secure  manner  and  shipped  in  the  first  ship  bound  for 
France  to  the  address  of  the  honble  Thomas  Jefferson.  The  expense  of 
which  and  your  charge  for  drawing  shall  be  remitted  you  as  soon  as  you 
shall  be  pleased  to  favor  me  with  the  amount.1 

On  the  20th  of  the  month  the  Governor  advised  Jefferson: 

The  Assembly  of  this  state  have  voted  a statue  of  our  late  worthy 
commander-in-chief,  General  Washington,  and  have  directed  their  in- 
tentions to  be  carried  into  execution  by  the  Executive.  For  particulars,  I 
refer  you  to  the  enclosed  resolution.  You  will  observe  they  have  only 
provided  for  one  side  of  the  pedestal,  and  that  the  others,  with  the  dress, 
etc.,  are  left  for  the  exercise  of  the  genius  of  the  Executive.  This  would 
be  a very  pleasing  employment  for  us,  if  we  had  ever  turned  our 
thoughts  that  way  or  were  adepts  in  the  Science  of  devices,  emblems,  etc. 
But  as  we  are  not,  we  have  unanimously  fixed  on  you  and  my  friend  Dr. 
Franklin,  who,  we  all  know,  are  fully  competent  to  the  task.  I therefore 
most  earnestly  request  the  favor  of  you  to  undertake  it.  . . . To  enable 
the  Artist  to  finish  his  work  in  the  most  perfect  manner,  I have  ordered 
Mr.  Peale  to  send  to  your  address  a full-length  picture  of  the  General  as 
soon  as  possible.  The  intention  of  the  Assembly  is  that  the  statue  should 
be  the  work  of  the  most  masterly  hand.  I shall  therefore  leave  it  to  you 


2 Governor’s  MS.  Letter-book,  State  Library,  Richmond,  Va. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  185 

to  find  out  the  best  in  any  of  the  European  states.  To  defray  the  expense 
certain  funds  are  appropriated  that  will  undoubtedly  produce  the  money, 
and  it  shall  be  remitted  you  long  before  the  work  can  be  completed.  . . . 
You  will  be  so  obliging,  as  soon  as  you  have  fixed  on  the  devices  and 
agreed  for  the  statue,  to  favor  me  with  the  particulars  of  the  former  and 
a copy  of  the  agreement,  that  there  may  be  no  deficiency  in  the  remit- 
tances, either  in  point  of  time  or  quantity.1 

A week  later  he  similarly  advised  Dr.  Franklin,  and,  on  August 
15,  Peale  acknowledges  the  Governor’s  letter  of  six  weeks  before, 
telling  him  he  has  begun  a whole-length  portrait  of  the  General 
and  will  make  all  despatch  with  it  that  he  can,  consistently  with  his 
endeavors  to  do  well.  He  adds : 

In  the  background  I intend  to  introduce  the  best  idea  I have  of  a per- 
spective view  of  York  and  Gloster,  and  the  surrender  of  the  British 
army,  which  I believe  may  be  useful  to  the  statuary,  if  any  pieces  of  his- 
tory are  to  be  made  in  bas-relief  on  the  pedestal  of  the  Statue.2 

On  October  30,  Peale  advises  Governor  Harrison  that  he  has 
finished  the  portrait  of  Washington,  which  shall  go  to  France  by 
the  first  ship. 

“Besides  the  view  of  York  and  Gloster,”  he  writes,  “I  have  in- 
troduced in  a nearer  ground  French  and  American  officers  with 
their  colors  displayed , and  between  them  the  British  with  their 
colors  cased.  These  figures  serve  to  tell  the  story  at  first  sight, 
which  the  more  distant  could  not  do.”  He  then  adds  this  very  in- 
teresting postscript:  “The  price  of  a coppy  of  General  Washing- 

1 Governor’s  MS.  Letter-book,  State  Library,  Richmond,  Va. 

2 “American  Historical  Record,”  Vol.  I,  p.  81. 


Life  and  Works  of 


1 86 

ton’s  in  large  whole  length  is  thirty  guineas.”1  A copy  of  this 
letter  the  Governor  sent  to  Jefferson,  in  order  that  he  might  know 
the  meaning  of  the  devices  in  the  picture,  at  the  same  time  in- 
closing him  a bill  of  exchange  for  8957  livres  tournois  at  a cost  of 
£55°,  “which  will  be  sufficient  to  set  the  work  a going.”2  A few 
days  later— November  20— the  Governor  expressed  his  apprecia- 
tion of  Peak’s  readiness  to  comply  with  his  request  and  expedition 
in  fulfilling  it,  and  inclosed  him  a bill  on  Robert  Morris  for  $143.33 
in  payment  for  the  work.3  The  painting  was  duly  forwarded  to 
Jefferson,  who,  on  April  15,  1785,  acknowledges  its  safe  arrival  to 
the  Governor,4  but  what  became  of  it  has  been  an  interesting  inquiry 
for  many  years.  It  may  be  resting  somewhere  in  France,  unknown ; 
but  the  minute  particulars  of  its  details  given  by  the  painter  should 
lead  easily  to  its  identification. 

Upon  receiving  this  commission  from  the  State  of  Virginia,  Jef- 
ferson wrote  to  Washington,  December  10,  1784 :5 

The  Executive  of  our  State  have  remitted,  to  Dr.  Franklin  and  myself, 
the  care  of  having  the  statue  made,  which  the  Assembly  directed  as  a 
mark  of  their  gratitude  to  you.  I was  unwell  when  I received  the  letter 
and  have  not  yet  been  able  to  see  and  confer  with  Dr.  Franklin  on  the 
subject.  I find  that  a Monsieur  Houdon,  of  this  place,  possesses  the 
reputation  of  being  the  first  statuary  in  the  world.  I sent  for  him  and 
had  some  conversation  with  him  on  the  subject.  He  thinks  it  cannot  be 

1 “American  Historical  Record,”  Vol.  I,  p.  82. 

2 Governor’s  MS.  Letter-book,  State  Library,  Richmond,  Va. 

3 Ibid. 

4 Calendar  of  State  Papers  of  Virginia,  Vol.  IV,  p.  24. 

5 Sparks,  “Correspondence  of  the  American  Revolution,”  Vol.  IV,  p.  83. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon 

perfectly  done  from  a picture,  and  is  so  enthusiastically  fond  of  being  the 
executor  of  this  work,  that  he  offers  to  go  to  America  for  the  purpose  of 
forming  your  bust  from  the  life,  leaving  all  his  business  here  in  the  mean- 
time. He  thinks  that  being  three  weeks  with  you  would  suffice  to  make 
his  model  of  plaister,  with  which  he  will  return  here,  and  the  work  will 
employ  him  three  years.  If  Dr.  Franklin  concurs  with  me,  we  shall  send 
him  over,  not  having  time  to  ask  your  permission  and  await  your  an- 
swer. I trust  that,  having  given  to  your  Country  so  much  of  your  time 
heretofore,  you  will  add  the  short  space  which  this  operation  will  re- 
quire, to  enable  them  to  transmit  to  posterity  the  form  of  the  person 
whose  actions  will  be  delivered  to  them  by  history.  Monsieur  Houdon  is 
at  present  engaged  in  making  a statue  of  the  King  of  France.  A bust  of 
Voltaire  executed  by  him  is  said  to  be  one  of  the  finest  in  the  world. 

It  was  not  until  the  12th  of  January,  1785,  that  Jefferson  ac- 
knowledged Governor  Harrison’s  letter  of  the  20th  of  July,  which 
had  come  to  his  hands  on  the  29th  of  November.1  He  writes:2 

There  could  be  no  question  raised  as  to  the  Sculptor  who  should  be 
employed;  the  reputation  of  Mons.  Houdon,  of  this  city,  being  un- 
rivalled in  Europe.  He  is  resorted  to  for  the  statues  of  most  of  the 
sovereigns  in  Europe.  On  conversing  with  him,  Dr.  Franklin  and  my- 
self became  satisfied  that  no  statue  could  be  executed  so  as  to  obtain  the 
approbation  of  those  to  whom  the  figure  of  the  original  is  known,  but  on 
actual  view  by  the  artist.  Of  course  no  statue  of  Genl.  Washington 
which  might  be  a true  evidence  of  his  figure  to  posterity  could  be  made 
from  his  picture.  Statues  are  made  every  day  from  portraits;  but  if  the 
person  be  living  they  are  always  condemned  by  those  who  know  him  for 
want  of  resemblance,  and  this  furnishes  a conclusive  presumption  that 

1 These  dates  emphasize  what  is  so  generally  lost  sight  of  in  the  present  days  of  rapid 
transit — the  long  intervals  between  the  mailing  and  receipt  of  letters  at  the  period  of 
which  we  are  writing.  2 Ford’s  “Writings  of  Jefferson,”  Vol.  IV,  p.  26. 


1 8 8 


Life  and  Works  of 


similar  representatives  of  the  dead  are  equally  unfaithful.  Mons.  Hou- 
don, whose  reputation  is  such  as  to  make  it  a principal  object,  was  so 
anxious  to  be  the  person  who  should  hand  down  the  figure  of  the  Gen- 
eral to  future  ages,  that  without  hesitating  a moment  he  offered  to  aban- 
don his  business  here,  to  leave  the  statues  of  Kings  unfinished,  and  to  go 
to  America  to  take  the  true  figure  by  actual  inspection  and  mensuration. 
We  believe  from  his  character  that  he  will  not  propose  any  very  con- 
siderable sum  for  making  this  journey;  probably  two  or  three  hundred 
guineas,  as  he  must  necessarily  be  absent  three  or  four  months,  and  his 
expenses  will  make  at  least  a hundred  guineas  of  the  money.  When  the 
whole  merit  of  the  piece  was  to  depend  upon  this  previous  expenditure, 
we  could  not  doubt  your  approbation  of  the  measure ; and  that  you  would 
think  with  us  that  things  that  are  handsome  or  just  should  never  be  done 
by  halves.  We  shall  regulate  the  article  of  expense  as  (Economically  as 
we  can  with  justice  to  the  wishes  of  the  world.  This  article,  together 
with  habit,  attitude,  devices,  etc.,  are  now  under  consideration,  and  till 
they  be  decided  on,  we  cannot  ultimately  contract  with  Mons.  Houdon. 
We  are  agreed  in  one  circumstance,  that  the  size  shall  be  precisely  that 
of  life.  Were  we  to  have  executed  a statue  in  any  other  case,  we  should 
have  preferred  making  it  somewhat  larger  than  life ; because,  as  they  are 
generally  a little  elevated,  they  appear  smaller,  but  we  think  it  impor- 
tant that  some  one  monument  should  be  preserved  of  the  true  size  as 
well  as  figure,  from  which  all  other  countries,  and  our  own,  at  any  future 
day  when  they  shall  desire  it,  may  take  copies,  varying  them  in  their 
dimensions  as  may  suit  the  particular  situation  in  which  they  wish  to 
place  them.  The  duty  as  well  as  the  glory  of  this  presentation  belongs 
peculiarly  to  Virginia.  We  are  sensible  that  the  eye  alone  considered 
will  not  be  quite  as  well  satisfied;  but  connecting  the  consideration 
that  the  whole  and  every  part  of  it  presents  the  true  size  of  the  life,  we 
suppose  the  beholders  will  receive  a greater  pleasure  on  the  whole. 
Should  we  agree  with  Mons.  Houdon,  he  will  come  over  in  the  April 
packet  and  of  course  may  be  expected  in  Virginia  about  the  last  of  May. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  189 

His  stay  with  the  General  will  be  about  a month.  This  will  be  employed 
in  forming  his  bust  of  plaister.  With  this  he  will  return  to  Paris,  and 
will  then  be  between  two  and  three  years  in  executing  the  whole  in 
marble.  . . . 

These  two  letters  from  Jefferson,  to  Washington  and  to  Harrison, 
establish  this  interesting  and  important  point  concerning  Houdon, 
that  his  position  as  “the  first  Sculptor  of  his  day”  was  firmly  estab- 
lished among  his  contemporaries  in  Europe— a reputation  that  a 
century  has  not  succeeded  in  lessening,  but,  on  the  contrary,  has 
served  to  establish  more  firmly.  For  Jefferson  was  not  confined  to 
France  in  the  selection  of  a sculptor,  as  has  often  been  stated,  out  of 
regard  for  the  amity  shown  by  that  country  to  this,  but  he  was  given 
“all  the  European  states”  from  which  to  select  the  most  masterly 
hand,  and  that  hand  was,  without  question,  Jean  Antoine  Houdon. 

Houdon’s  refusal  to  make  the  statue  except  from  life,  and  his 
perfect  willingness  to  cross  the  ocean  for  the  purpose,  which  was  no 
inconsiderable  undertaking  in  1785,  showed  the  true  spirit  of  the 
artist  and  should  never  be  forgotten  by  lovers  of  art  and  by  ad- 
mirers of  Washington.  La  Fayette  sent  by  Houdon’s  hand  a letter 
to  Washington,  written  July  4,  1785, 1 in  which  he  says,  “Nothing 
but  the  love  of  glory  and  his  respect  for  you  could  induce  him  to 
cross  the  seas,  as  his  business  here  far  exceeds  his  leisure,  and  his 
numerous  and  gratified  friends  make  him  very  happy  at  home.” 

Before  the  final  agreement  for  the  work  could  be  consummated, 

1 Sparks,  “Correspondence  of  the  American  Revolution,”  Vol.  IV,  p.  106. 


Life  and  Works  of 


190 

however,  Houdon  was  taken  seriously  ill,  and  for  a time  his  life  was 
despaired  of.  This  made  it  impossible  for  him  to  take  the  April 
packet,  as  Jefferson  had  anticipated;  and  as  Dr.  Franklin  was  pre- 
paring to  return  home,  Houdon’s  departure  was  deferred  until  the 
two  could  journey  together.  In  order  to  make  this  possible,  the 
French  government,  on  June  30,  granted  Houdon  permission  to 
travel  for  six  months.  One  prudent  condition  that  he  exacted  be- 
fore he  would  leave  France  gave  Jefferson  no  little  tribulation.  He 
required  that  his  life  should  be  insured  for  10,000  livres  for  the 
benefit  of  his  family,  who  were  dependent  upon  him,  which,  after 
much  negotiation,  was  finally  effected  in  London  by  John  Adams.1 

Jefferson  did  everything  possible  to  provide  for  Houdon  a warm 
welcome,  both  as  an  artist  and  as  a man,  in  the  new  country,  to 
whose  tongue,  even,  he  was  a stranger.  He  wrote  Washington,  July 
10,  1785 :2 

Mr.  Houdon  would  much  sooner  have  had  the  honor  of  attending  you, 
but  for  a spell  of  sickness,  which  long  induced  us  to  despair  of  his  recov- 
ery, and  from  which  he  is  but  recently  recovered.  He  comes  now  for  the 
purpose  of  lending  the  aid  of  his  art  to  transmit  you  to  posterity.  He  is 
without  rivalship  in  it,  being  employed  from  all  parts  of  Europe  in  what- 
ever is  capital.  He  has  had  difficulty  in  withdrawing  himself  from  an 
order  of  the  Empress  of  Russia,  a difficulty,  however,  that  arose  from  a 
desire  to  show  her  respect,  but  which  never  gave  him  a moment’s  hesita- 
tion about  his  present  voyage,  which  he  considers  as  promising  the  bright- 
est chapter  of  his  history.  I have  spoken  of  him  as  an  artist  only;  but  I 

1 Jefferson  MSS.,  Library  of  Congress. 

2 Randolph’s  Jefferson,  Vol.  I,  p.  248. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  I9I 

can  assure  you  also  that,  as  a man,  he  is  disinterested,  generous,  candid 
and  panting  for  glory;  in  every  circumstance  meriting  your  good  opinion. 
He  will  have  need  to  see  you  much  while  he  shall  have  the  honor  of 
being  with  you ; which  you  can  the  more  freely  admit,  as  his  eminence  and 
merit  give  him  admission  into  genteel  society  here.  He  will  need  an 
interpreter.  I suppose  you  could  procure  some  person  from  Alexandria, 
who  might  be  agreeable  to  yourself,  to  perform  the  office.  He  brings 
with  him  one  or  two  subordinate  workmen,  who,  of  course,  will  associate 
with  their  own  class.1 

Two  days  later  he  addressed  letters  of  introduction  to  Richard 
Henry  Lee,  Monroe,  and  the  entire  Virginia  delegation  in  Con- 
gress. The  last  cited  letter  is  very  important  as  showing  Houdon’s 
status  in  relation  to  the  proposed  equestrian  statue.2 

In  consequence  of  the  orders  of  the  Legislative  and  Executive  bodies 
of  Virginia,  I have  engaged  Mons.  Houdon  to  make  the  statue  of  Genl. 
Washington.  For  this  purpose  it  is  necessary  for  him  to  see  the  Gen- 
eral. He  therefore  goes  with  Doctr.  Franklin,  and  will  have  the  honor 
of  delivering  this  himself.  As  his  journey  is  at  the  expense  of  the  state, 
according  to  our  contract,  I will  pray  you  to  favor  him  with  your  patron- 
age and  councils  and  to  protect  him  as  much  as  possible  from  those  im- 
positions to  which  strangers  are  but  too  much  exposed.  I have  advised 
him  to  proceed  in  the  stages  to  the  General’s.  I have  also  agreed,  if  he 
can  see  Generals  Green  and  Gates,  whose  busts  he  has  a desire  to  make, 
that  he  may  make  a moderate  deviation  for  this  purpose,  after  he  has 
done  with  General  Washington.  But  the  most  important  object  with 
him  is  to  be  employed  to  make  General  Washington’s  Equestrian  statue 
for  Congress.  Nothing  but  the  expectation  of  this  could  have  engaged 

1 Houdon  took  with  him  three  “eleves.”  The  names  of  two  of  them,  M.  Begler  and 
M.  Micheli,  have  been  preserved  by  Montaiglon  and  Duplessis,  p.  319. 

2 Jefferson  MSS.,  Library  of  Congress. 


192 


Life  and  Works  of 


him  to  have  undertaken  the  voyage,  as  the  pedestrian  statue  for  Virginia 
will  not  make  it  worth  the  business  he  loses  by  absenting  himself.  I was 
therefore  obliged  to  assure  him  of  my  recommendation  for  this  greater 
work.  Having  acted  in  this  for  the  state,  you  will,  I hope,  think  your- 
selves in  some  measure  bound  to  patronize  and  urge  his  being  employed 
by  Congress.  I would  not  have  done  this  myself  nor  asked  you  to  do  it, 
did  I not  see  that  it  would  be  better  for  Congress  to  put  this  business  into 
his  hands  than  those  of  any  other  person  living,  for  these  reasons : ( 1 ) 
He  is,  without  rivalship,  the  first  statuary  of  his  age;  as  a proof  of  which 
he  receives  orders  from  every  other  country  for  things  intended  to  be 
capital.  (2)  He  will  have  seen  General  Washington,  have  taken  his 
measures  in  every  part,  and  of  course  whatever  he  does  of  him  will  have 
the  merit  of  being  original,  from  which  other  workmen  can  only  furnish 
copies.  (3)  He  is  in  possession  of  the  house,  the  furnaces,  and  all  the 
apparatus  provided  for  making  the  statue  of  Louis  XV.  If  any  other 
workman  is  employed,  this  will  all  be  to  be  provided  anew,  and  of  course 
to  be  added  to  the  price  of  the  statue,  for  no  man  can  ever  expect  to  make 
two  equestrian  statues.  The  addition  to  which  this  would  be  to  the  price, 
will  much  exceed  the  expectation  of  any  person  who  has  not  seen  that 
apparatus.  In  truth,  it  is  immense.  As  to  the  price  of  the  work,  it  will 
be  much  greater  than  Congress  is  aware  of,  probably.  I have  enquired 
somewhat  into  this  circumstance  and  find  the  prices  of  those  made  for 
two  centuries  past  have  been  from  120,000  guineas  down  to  16,000 
guineas,  according  to  the  size.  And  as  far  as  I have  seen,  the  smaller 
they  are  the  more  agreeable.  ...  In  making  a contract  with  Mons. 
Houdon,  it  would  not  be  proper  to  advance  money  but  as  his  disburse- 
ments and  labor  advance.  As  it  is  a work  of  many  years,  this  will  render 
the  expense  insensible.  The  pedestrian  statue  in  marble  is  to  take  three 
years.  The  equestrian,  of  course,  much  more.  Therefore  the  sooner  it 
is  begun,  the  better. 

This  letter  is  of  primary  interest.  Its  very  opening  sentence 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  193 

shows  that  while  Franklin  had  been  invited  by  Governor  Harrison 
to  assist  Jefferson  in  the  selection  of  a suitable  statue,  the  selection 
of  a sculptor  was  Jefferson’s  alone.  “I  have  engaged  Mons.  Hou- 
don,” are  his  words,  showing  that  when  Governor  Harrison  wrote 
him  in  his  first  letter,  “I  shall  therefore  leave  it  to  you  to  find  out 
the  best  in  any  of  the  European  states,”  the  personal  pronoun  was 
used  literally  for  Jefferson  and  not  for  Jefferson  and  Franklin. 
This  is  important  because  many  biographers  of  Franklin  have 
stated,  and  other  writers  have  followed  them,  that  it  was  Franklin 
who  selected  Houdon  to  make  this  now  famous  statue  of  Washing- 
ton, which  we  show  is  clearly  erroneous.  There  is  every  reason, 
too,  why  Jefferson  should  have  had  the  laboring  oar.  He  was  in  the 
prime  of  life,  just  past  forty  years,  a Virginian,  and  had  been  al- 
ready Governor  of  the  State  before  he  was  sent  to  Paris  as  Minister 
to  the  Court  of  France,  where  he  had  only  recently  arrived.  Frank- 
lin was  approaching  his  eightieth  year,  was  suffering  the  physical 
infirmities  of  age,  and  was  preparing  to  lay  down  his  public  bur- 
dens and  return  home  to  rest  during  his  remaining  years— that  is, 
if  such  a man  could  rest— so  that  Jefferson,  single-handed,  would 
have  to  attend  to  the  completion  of  the  work  during  the  ensuing 
three  years  it  was  to  require.  Of  course,  it  is  not  to  be  questioned 
but  that  Jefferson  took  counsel  with  Franklin  over  the  selection  of 
the  sculptor,  though  Jefferson,  as  we  have  seen  by  his  letter  of 
December  10  to  Washington,  suggested  Houdon’s  name  before  he 
had  even  been  able  “to  see  and  confer  with  Dr.  Franklin  on  the 


194 


Life  and  Works  of 


subject.”  That  Houdon  would  meet  with  Franklin’s  full  approval 
is  clear  from  the  relations  that  existed  between  the  sculptor  and  the 
philosopher,  as  shown  in  our  chapter  on  “Busts  of  Franklin”;  and 
the  letter  we  there  give,  of  November  8,  1783,  from  Houdon,  rela- 
tive to  the  book  that  Franklin  wanted,  “touching  the  mould  of 
Louis  XV,”1  taken  in  connection  with  Houdon’s  known  ambition  to 
model  the  equestrian  statue  that  Congress  had  voted  should  be 
erected  to  Washington,  and,  without  the  hope  of  receiving  which 
we  are  told  he  would  not  have  journeyed  here,  must  have  been  the 
occasion  of  Houdon’s  introduction  to  Franklin. 

This  ambition  and  hope  Houdon  seems  to  have  tenaciously  clung 
to,  for  on  July  8,  1786,  we  find  Jefferson  writing  to  John  Jay,  Secre- 
tary of  Foreign  Affairs,2  “At  the  desire  of  Monsieur  Houdon  I 
have  the  honor  to  enclose  to  you  his  propositions  for  making  the 
Equestrian  statue  of  General  Washington.” 

Enclosures .3  — Mr.  Houdon  is  in  possession  of  the  workhouse  of  the 
city  of  Paris,  employed  for  casting  large  works  in  Bronze  and  Drilling 
on  the  spot  where  they  are  erected,  and  requires  for  the  execution  of  an 
Equestrian  Statue  of  General  Washington  in  bronze  the  sum  600,000 
livres  and  the  term  of  ten  years  from  the  present  instant  for  the  furnish- 
ing of  it,  in  case  the  bargain  should  be  signed  by  both  parties  in  the  course 
of  the  present  year.  The  price  being  agreed  on,  he  submits  the  distribu- 

1 “Description  des  travaux  qui  ont  precede,  accompagne  et  suivi  la  fonte  en  bronze 
d’un  seul  jet  de  la  statue  equestre  de  Louis  XV,  le  bien-aime.  Dresse  sur  les  memoires 
de  M.  Lempereur  par  M.  Mariette.  Paris,  1768.” 

2 Jefferson  MSS.,  Library  of  Congress. 

3 Ibid. 


r9S 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon 

tion  of  the  payments  to  the  convenience  of  the  Congress,  submitting, 
however,  for  their  consideration  that  the  heaviest  part  of  the  expense 
will  fall  on  him  in  the  first  years.  He  thinks  he  ought  to  recommend  to 
have  the  work  performed  in  two  separate  casts, — that  is,  the  General  in 
one  cast  and  the  horse  in  another,— since  this  method  would  not  be  any 
prejudice  to  the  uniformity  of  the  whole  work;  which,  on  the  contrary, 
would  be  benefited  in  every  part  as  well  in  its  execution  as  in  its  solidity 
and  facility  of  transporting  it.  Mr.  Houdon  insists  the  rather  upon  this 
point  from  the  experience  he  and  his  workmen  have  acquired  in  their 
endeavor  to  perfect  themselves,  as  he  knows  of  no  founder  at  present 
equal  in  ability  to  those  which  he  has  himself  instructed,  at  a great  ex- 
pense, during  fifteen  years  that  he  has  been  in  possession  of  the  city’s 
foundry,  where  the  equestrian  statue  of  Louis  XV  was  cast,  and  those 
who  were  employed  in  that  work  are  now  dead. 

The  second  proposition  was  in  the  same  words,  except  that  the 
time  was  shortened  to  “eight  years”  and  the  cost  correspondingly 
increased  to  “ 1,000,000  livres.” 

Houdon  was  so  full  of  the  project  that  he  did  actually  model  an 
equestrian  statuette  “en  platre  d’environ  1 pied,”  which  was  exhib- 
ited in  the  Salon  of  1793.  Unfortunately,  all  trace  of  this  model  is 
lost.  It  was  not  even  in  the  sale  of  1828,  or  we  might  yet  hope  to 
have  it  reproduced  and  thus  do  tardy  honor  to  Houdon  and  have 
an  equestrian  statue  worthy  of  Washington.1  In  1804  Houdon 

1 Delerot  and  Legrelle,  in  writing  of  Houdon’s  desire  to  execute  the  equestrian  statue 
of  Washington,  say  that  he  was  so  preoccupied  with  the  idea  that,  with  such  an  end  in 
view,  he  made  a cast  of  a skinless  horse,  which  he  later  presented  to  the  Academy  of 
Fine  Arts.  But  they  are  mistaken  when  they  add  that  this  project  “never  reached  even  a 
beginning  looking  to  its  execution.”  They  have  overlooked  the  model  in  the  Salon 
of  1793. 


Life  and  Works  of 


196 

must  have  had  his  hope  of  yet  making  this  equestrian  statue  of 
Washington,  an  object  so  near  to  his  heart,  rekindled  by  a corre- 
spondence that  he  had  with  Chancellor  Livingston,  then  the  Amer- 
ican representative  in  France.  We  find  Houdon  writing  to  Liv- 
ingston, “5  Germinal  [26th  of  March],  1804, m a repetition  of  the 
terms  and  conditions  he  gave  to  Jay,  adding  that 

This  price  is  one  that  several  sculptors  asked  for  the  statue  of  Peter 
the  Great  in  Russia,  and  which  was  given  to  M.  Falconet  some  thirty  or 
forty  years  since.  In  spite  of  the  increase  in  the  price  of  everything,  I 
ask  no  other,  because  I desire  to  respond  worthily  to  the  confidence  with 
which  the  United  States  honor  me,  and  I recall  with  gratitude  that, 
in  1785,  I was  chosen  by  them  to  execute  the  pedestrian  statue  of  the 
General;  that  then  I was  given  the  hope  of  executing  this  equestrian  one, 
and  for  which  I then  made  the  necessary  measurements  upon  the  Gen- 
eral himself. 

But  nothing  came  of  this,  and  the  subject  seems  to  have  been 
dropped  for  half  a century,  when  Clark  Mills  was  employed  to 
make  the  equestrian  statue  now  in  Washington— in  the  words  of 
the  Act  of  Congress,  “to  substantially  carry  into  effect  the  resolu- 
tion passed  August  7,  1783. ” 

Three  days  after  Jefferson  wrote  his  letter  to  the  Virginian  dele- 
gates in  Congress,  he  gives  Patrick  Henry,  the  new  Governor  of 
Virginia,  the  terms  of  the  contract  with  Houdon.  He  writes,  July 
15,  1785 :2 

1 Autograph  Collection  of  Simon  Gratz,  Esq.,  of  Philadelphia. 

2 Jefferson  MSS.,  Library  of  Congress. 


i97 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon 

Mr.  Houdon’s  long  and  desperate  illness  has  retarded  till  now  his  de- 
parture for  Virginia.  We  had  hoped  from  our  first  conversations  with 
him  that  it  would  be  easy  to  make  our  terms,  and  that  the  cost  of  the 
statue  and  expense  of  sending  him  would  be  but  about  a thousand  guineas. 
But  when  we  came  to  settle  this  precisely  he  thought  himself  obliged  to 
ask  vastly  more,  insomuch  that  one  moment  we  thought  our  treaty  at  an 
end.  But,  unwilling  to  commit  such  a work  to  an  inferior  hand,  we  made 
him  an  ultimate  proposition  on  our  part.  He  was  as  much  mortified  at 
the  prospect  of  not  being  the  executor  of  such  a work  as  we  were  not  to 
have  it  done  by  such  a hand.  He  therefore  acceded  to  our  terms,  tho’ 
we  are  satisfied  he  will  be  a considerable  loser.  We  were  led  to  insist  on 
them  because  in  a former  letter  to  the  Governor  I had  given  the  hope 
we  entertained  of  bringing  the  whole  within  1000  guineas.  The  terms 
are  25,000  livres  or  1000  English  guineas,  the  English  guinea  being 
worth  25  livres,  for  the  statue  and  pedestal.  Besides  this,  we  pay  his 
expenses  going  and  returning,  which  we  expect  will  be  between  four  and 
five  thousand  livres;  and  if  he  dies  in  the  voyage,  we  pay  his  family 
10,000  livres.  This  latter  proposition  was  disagreeable  to  us.  But  he 
has  a father,  mother  and  sisters  who  have  no  other  resource  but  in  his 
labours;  and  he  is  himself  one  of  the  best  men  in  the  world.  He  there- 
fore made  it  a sine  qua  non)  without  which  all  would  have  been  off.  . . . 
I enclose  you  for  a more  particular  detail  a copy  of  the  agreement.1  Dr. 
Franklin,  being  on  his  departure,  did  not  become  a party  to  the  instru- 
ment, tho*  it  has  been  concluded  with  his  approbation.  He  was  disposed 
to  give  250  guineas  more,  which  would  have  split  the  difference  between 
the  actual  terms  and  Mr.  Houdon’s  demand.  I wish  the  state,  at  the 
conclusion  of  this  work,  may  agree  to  give  him  this  much  more,  because  I 
am  persuaded  he  will  be  a loser,  which  I am  sure  their  generosity  would 
not  wish.  But  I have  not  given  him  the  smallest  expectation  of  it,  chus- 
ing  the  proposition  would  come  from  the  state,  which  will  be  more 
honorable.  You  will  perceive  by  the  agreement  that  I pay  him  imme- 
1 This  agreement  has  not  been  preserved  in  the  Archives  of  Virginia. 


Life  and  Works  of 


I98 

diately  8333%  livres,  which  is  to  be  employed  in  getting  the  marble  in 
Italy,  its  transportation,  etc.  The  package  and  transportation  of  his 
stucco  to  make  the  moulds  will  be  about  500  livres.  I shall  furnish  him 
with  money  for  his  expenses  in  France,  and  I have  authorized  Dr. 
Franklin,  when  he  arrives  in  Philadelphia,  to  draw  on  me  for  money  for 
his  other  expenses,  going,  staying  and  returning.  . . . Dr.  Franklin 
leaves  Passy  this  morning.1  As  he  travels  in  a litter,  Mr.  Houdon  will 
follow  him  some  days  hence,  and  will  embark  with  him  for  Philadelphia. 
I am  in  hopes  he  will  not  stay  in  America  more  than  a month. 

On  the  20th,  Houdon  joined  Franklin  at  Havre;  thence  they 
crossed  together  to  England  and  sailed  from  Southampton  on  July 
28,  landing  in  Philadelphia  on  September  14,  1785.  But  poor 
Houdon  had  trials  and  tribulations  before  he  sailed  that  were  not 
easily  cured  on  his  arrival.  We  knew  that  he  was  disappointed  by 
the  non-arrival  at  Havre  of  his  tools  and  materials,  and  that  he  had 
to  leave  without  them  and  delay  his  visit  to  Mount  Vernon  until  he 
could  supply  himself  anew.  But  we  did  not  know  to  what  sore 
straits  the  sculptor  was  really  put,  until  the  recent  discovery,  among 
the  Franklin  MSS.  in  the  American  Philosophical  Society,  of  a 
letter  from  Mons.  Le  Veillard2  to  Temple  Franklin,  and  a draft  of 
Temple  Franklin’s  reply,3  bearing  on  the  subject.  The  story  is 
very  graphically  told  in  a few  words  by  M.  Le  Veillard:  “I  have 
learned  with  pain  that  your  belongings  are  still  lying  at  Havre.  . . . 

1 Franklin  sets  down  in  his  private  journal  (Sparks’s  Franklin,  Vol.  I,  p.  587)  : 
“Set  out  on  my  return  home,  July  12,  1785,  leaving  Passy.”  This  was  three  days  earlier 
than  Jefferson  writes  and  shows  the  uncertainty  of  even  contemporaneous  records. 

2 October  9,  1785. 

3 March  27,  1786. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  i99 

Poor  M.  Houdon,  with  his  half-dozen  shirts  for  four  persons! 
He  must  have  passed  through  several  Sundays  without  a clean  one. 
And  the  tools  and  the  material  for  the  Genl.  Washington  will  be  of 
American  clay  with  American  tools.”  To  which  Temple  Franklin 
replied : “Our  belongings  have  reached  here  after  a voyage  of  three 
months.  Yes!  M.  Houdon  has  suffered  much.  During  the  pas- 
sage we  took  up  a subscription  of  Shirts  and  Stockings  in  his  favor, 
and  on  arrival  here  he  was  obliged  to  make  purchases  for  himself 
and  for  his  workmen.”  These  letters,  telling  so  plainly  of  Hou- 
don’s  plight,  make  clear  what  before  seemed  very  odd  when  we 
found,  in  Houdon’s  account  of  expenses  of  his  journey  to  and  from 
America,  so  many  items  for  clothing,  of  all  kinds,  purchased  for 
himself  and  his  three  “eleves.”1  Such  details  add  much  interest  to 
the  picture,  and  surround  it  with  an  atmosphere  which  otherwise 
would  be  lacking. 

On  September  20  Franklin  advised  Washington  of  his  arrival, 
with  Houdon,  and  that  the  latter  would  wait  upon  him  as  soon  as 
he  had  supplied  himself  with  materials  and  instruments.  On  the 
26th  Washington  replied  to  Franklin:  “When  it  suits  M.  Houdon 
to  come  hither  I will  accommodate  him  in  the  best  manner  I am 
able  and  shall  endeavor  to  render  his  stay  as  agreeable  as  I can.” 
The  same  day  he  wrote  to  Houdon : 

By  a letter,  which  I have  lately  had  the  honour  to  receive  from  Dr. 

1 This  important  document  is  printed  in  Appendix  “A”  from  the  original  in  Houdon’s 
autograph  in  the  Archives  of  Virginia  in  the  State  Library  at  Richmond. 


200 


Life  and  Works  of 


Franklin,  at  Philadelphia,  I am  informed  of  your  arrival  at  that  place. 
Many  letters  from  very  respectable  characters  in  France,  as  well  as  the 
Doctor’s,  inform  me  of  the  occasion,  for  which,  though  the  cause  is  not 
of  my  seeking,  I feel  the  most  agreeable  and  grateful  sensations.  I wish 
the  object  of  your  mission  had  been  more  worthy  of  the  masterly  genius 
of  the  first  statuary  in  Europe;  for  thus  you  are  represented  to  me.  It 
will  give  me  pleasure,  Sir,  to  welcome  you  to  the  seat  of  my  retirement; 
and  whatever  I have,  or  can  procure,  that  is  necessary  to  your  purposes, 
or  convenient  and  agreeable  to  your  wishes,  you  must  freely  command, 
as  inclination  to  oblige  you  will  be  among  the  last  things  in  which  I shall 
be  found  deficient,  either  on  your  arrival  or  during  your  stay. 

Houdon,  having  remained  in  Philadelphia  over  two  weeks,  ar- 
rived at  Mount  Vernon  in  the  night  of  Sunday,  October  2,  1785, 
under  which  date  Washington  enters  in  his  diary: 

After  we  were  in  bed  (about  eleven  o’clock  in  the  evening),  Mr.  Hou- 
don, sent  from  Paris  by  Dr.  Franklin  and  Mr.  Jefferson  to  take  my  Bust, 
in  behalf  of  the  State  of  Virginia,  with  three  young  men  assistants,  in- 
troduced by  a Mr.  Perin,  a French  gentleman  of  Alexandria,  arrived 
here  by  water  from  the  latter  place. 

The  next  entry  is  under  “Friday,  October  7th” : 

Sat  this  day,  as  I had  done  yesterday,  for  Mr.  Houdon  to  form  my 
bust. 

Then  follows: 

Monday,  October  10.  Observed  the  process  for  preparing  the 
plaister  of  Paris  and  mixing  of  it  according  to  Mr.  Houdon. 

Wednesday,  October  12.  In  the  evening  Mr.  Madison  came. 

Friday,  October  14.  Mr.  Madison  went  away. 

Wednesday,  October  19.  Mr.  Houdon,  having  finished  his  business 
which  bro’t  him  hither,  went  up  on  Monday  [17th],  with  his  people, 


201 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon 

work  and  implements,  in  my  barge,  to  Alexandria,  to  take  a passage  in 
the  Stage  for  Philadelphia  the  next  morning. 


These  autograph  entries  by  Washington  are  of  the  first  impor- 
tance in  the  history  of  the  Houdon  portrait  of  Washington,  for  they 
fix  the  exact  time  that  the  sculptor  was  at  Mount  Vernon  to  have 
been  a fortnight,1  and  also  the  exact  day  when  the  mould  of  the  liv- 
ing face  was  made.  The  latter  was  made  in  the  presence  of  James 
Madison,  and  the  notation  of  Madison’s  arriving  on  the  evening  of 
October  12  and  leaving  on  October  14  gives  us,  without  the  slight- 
est doubt,  Thursday,  October  13,  1785,  as  the  day  and  date  when 
the  cast  of  Washington  was  made.  Fortunately,  and  most  mar- 
velous to  relate,  the  mask  of  Washington’s  face,  cast  from  the 
matrix  taken  from  his  living  features,  exists  to-day,  and  has  recently 
come  into  possession  of  Mr.  J.  Pierpont  Morgan.2  It  was  taken  to 
Paris  by  Houdon,  who  showed  it  to  Rembrandt  Peale  in  his  studio 
in  1808,  when  Peale  painted  Houdon’s  portrait,  now  in  the  Penn- 
sylvania Academy  of  Fine  Arts.3  At  the  sale  of  Houdon’s  effects 
after  his  decease  in  1828,  this  mask  was  purchased  by  Robert 
Walsh,  of  Philadelphia,  who  brought  it  to  America,  and  later  it 
became  the  property  of  John  Struthers,  a Scotch  stone-cutter  in 

1 Delerot  and  Legrelle’s  account  of  Houdon’s  visit  to  America  is  nearly  as  erroneous 
as  the  statement  in  the  new  “Biographie  Generale,”  1861,  Vol.  XXV,  p.  254,  which  says 
that  “Houdon  resided  with  Washington  in  Philadelphia  and  there  made  the  bust,”  etc. 

2 It  is  a great  pity  that  Houdon  opened  the  eyes  in  this  mask,  and  the  reason  for  his 
doing  so  is  unaccountable. 

3 Letter  from  Rembrandt  Peale  to  John  Durand,  Editor  of  “The  Crayon,”  September 
5,  1857,  in  possession  of  Mr.  Hart. 


202 


Life  and  Works  of 


that  city,  who  had  in  his  employ  a German  sculptor  named  Ferdi- 
nand Pettrick,  to  whom  in  1839  he  gave  the  Houdon  life-mask  of 
Washington.  Pettrick  returned  to  Europe  and  settled  in  Rome, 
where  he  was  known  and  assisted  in  his  old  age  by  the  eminent 
American  poet  and  sculptor,  William  Wetmore  Story;  and  from 
his  death-bed  at  Palestrina,  Pettrick  sent  his  wife  with  the  life- 
mask  to  Story,  desiring  that  he  should  become  the  possessor  of  this, 
the  most  important  iconographic  memorial  of  the  great  Washington 
that  exists,  and  Story  bought  it.1  It  was  the  choicest  treasure  of 
Mr.  Story’s  studio,  in  the  Palazzo  Barberini,  until  his  death,  when 
it  passed  to  his  sculptor  son,  Waldo  Story,  who  in  February,  1908, 
disposed  of  it  to  Mr.  Morgan.  This  is  the  history  and  pedigree  of 
the  only  mask  from  Washington’s  face  that  is  authentic,  the  plaster 
faces  exhibited  in  many  public  collections  as  “Houdon’s  mask  of 
Washington”  being  nothing  but  casts  from  the  face  of  a Houdon 
bust,  and  a very  much  worn  one  at  that,  of  no  artistic  or  historical 
value  whatever. 

Mr.  Story,  in  his  article  already  cited,  makes  a long  and  labored 
argument  to  show  that  Houdon  did  not  model  a bust  of  Washing- 
ton from  life  at  Mount  Vernon,  but  satisfied  himself  with  the  mask 
and  made  the  bust  from  it  after  his  return  to  Paris.  He  sees  great 
differences  between  the  bust  and  the  life-mask,  all  of  which  favor 

the  mask,  notwithstanding  which  he  admits  that  “a  mask  from  the 

/ 

living  face,  though  it  repeats  exactly  the  true  forms  of  the  original, 

1 “The  Mask  of  Washington,”  by  W.  W.  Story,  Harper’s  Weekly  of  February  26,  1887. 


JLIIFIE  CD) IF5  WAS'HIWcaTOT 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  203 

lacks  the  spirit  and  expression  of  the  real  person.”  But  Mr.  Story 
does  not  tell  us  with  what  bust  of  Washington  by  Houdon  he  com- 
pared the  mask,  and  we  have  found,  in  pursuing  our  studies  and  in- 
vestigations of  this  subject,  that  there  are  great  differences  among 
them,  owing,  of  course,  to  the  distance  the  example  is  removed  from 
the  original.1  The  value  of  masks  from  life  or  after  death,  as  por- 
traits, I shall  not  discuss  here,  as  I have  already  written  fully  upon 
that  subject;2  but  we  have  positive  affirmative  proof  of  the  fallacy 
of  Mr  Story’s  argument  in  the  present  instance. 

Houdon  did  model  a bust  of  Washington  from  life  at  Mount 
Vernon  in  October,  1785. 

Washington  not  only  records  in  his  diary  sitting  “for  Mr.  Hou- 
don to  form  my  Bust,”  but  it  was  exhibited  to  Congress  and  to 
Franklin,  Hopkinson,  Thomson  and  others,  who  have  recorded  it. 

Houdon  arrived  in  Philadelphia,  on  his  return  from  Mount 
Vernon,  in  the  evening  of  October  20, 3 and  on  the  24th  wrote 
Franklin  the  following  letter:4 

I have  the  honor  to  recall  to  Mons.  Dr.  Franklin  before  Mons.  his  son 
makes  an  estimate  of  the  amount  I shall  be  obliged  to  draw  before  leav- 

1 These  endless  reproductions,  some  of  them  having  even  the  audacity  to  forge  his 
signature,  are  so  many  counterfeits  of  Houdon’s  work,  from  which  he  was  not  free  even 
in  his  lifetime,  and  of  which  he  often  bitterly  complained  as  being  detrimental  to  his 
fame  as  to  his  pocket.  His  Ecorche,  Voltaire,  Rousseau  and  Washington  were  those 
most  commonly  pirated,  and  this  accounts  for  the  dissimilarity  between  casts  of  what  is 
intended  for  the  same  head. 

2 Browere’s  “Life-Masks  of  Great  Americans,”  by  Charles  Henry  Hart,  New  York, 

1899. 

3 Letter  of  Franklin  to  Ferdinand  Grand.  Smyth’s  Franklin,  Vol.  IX,  p.  471. 

4 Autograph  Collection  of  Simon  Gratz,  Esq.,  Philadelphia. 


204 


Life  and  Works  of 


ing,  that  I owe  here  to  M.  Thovarre  [?],  partner  in  the  house  of  de 
Heyder  Veydt,  25  louis  borrowed  at  Baltimore  in  order  to  pursue  my 
journey.  To  the  tailor  since  my  return  from  the  General’s  about  8,  also. 
The  expenses  at  the  Inn  here  as  well,  which  I cannot  as  yet  estimate. 
Other  like  unavoidable  expenditures.  What  I re-owe  in  the  house  of 
M.  Dr.  F.  The  journeys  and  stays  before  embarking  for  our  return  to 
France.  Those  of  our  passage  money  there  from  Orient  to  Paris,  or 
from  London  to  Paris,  if  there  is  time  to  be  gained  in  following  the 
shortest  route.  The  cost  of  these  routes  I have  no  knowledge  of  and  I 
ask  pardon  for  it.  A sum  for  unforeseen  happenings  or  letters  of  credit 
available  at  different  points,  a matter  which  appears  to  be  very  essential, 
judging  by  my  experience  in  Virginia.  Houdon 


The  next  day,  while  Houdon  was  still  in  Philadelphia,  Francis 
Hopkinson,  poet,  artist,  lawyer  and  statesman,  wrote  to  Jefferson:1 

This  will  be  delivered  to  you  by  Mr.  Houdon,  the  artist  who  came 
over  to  make  a model  for  a statue  of  Gl.  Washington.  I yesterday  saw 
the  head  he  has  modelled  of  that  great  man.  I am  charmed  with  it.  He 
is  certainly  a most  capital  artist.  There  is  no  looking  at  this  bust  without 
admiration  and  delight.  The  noble  air,  sublime  expression  and  faithful 
likeness  evince  the  hand  of  a master.  You  will  be  charmed  with  it.  Mr. 
Houdon,  having  executed  the  purpose  of  his  voyage,  is  impatient  to  re- 
turn. 


The  following  day— October  26— William  Temple  Franklin 
writes  to  John  Jay  at  New  York:2 

Mr.  Houdon,  of  whom  you  have  heard  me  speak,  will  have  the  honor 
of  delivering  this  to  you.  He  is  lately  returned  from  Virginia,  where  he 

1 Jefferson  MSS.,  Library  of  Congress. 

2 Johnston’s  Jay  Correspondence,  Vol.  IV,  p.  174. 


205 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon 

has  been  fulfilling  the  object  of  his  coming  to  America,  in  modelling  the 
bust  of  General  Washington,  in  which  he  has  been  singularly  successful. 
He  is  now  about  returning  to  France  by  the  way  of  N.  York.  I have 
persuaded  him  to  take  with  him  the  Genl’s  bust  that  he  has  given  us,  in 
order  to  show  to  Congress  what  he  is  capable  of  doing  and  thereby  ob- 
taining the  preference  in  being  employed  to  make  the  Equestrian  Statue 
voted  long  since. 

Truthful  Charles  Thomson,  who  was  never  carried  away  by  his 
emotions,  wrote  to  Jefferson  from  New  York,  November  2,  1785  r1 

Mr.  Houdon  has  been  to  Mount  Vernon  and  taken  the  bust  of  our 
amiable  General.  He  exhibited  it  to  the  view  of  Congress.  It  appears 
to  me  to  be  executed  in  a masterly  manner.  I acknowledge  my  want  of 
skill  to  judge  of  performance  of  this  nature,  but  there  is  in  the  air  and 
attitude  of  this,  something  that  pleases  me.  Most  other  pictures  seem 
to  have  their  attention  turned  on  the  objects  around  them,  but  in  this  the 
artist,  by  elevating  the  chin  and  countenance,  has  given  it  the  air  of  one 
looking  forward  into  futurity.  But  I will  not  venture  any  criticisms  for 
fear  of  betraying  my  ignorance. 

What  became  of  the  bust  that,  Temple  Franklin  wrote  Jay, 
“Houdon  has  given  us”  no  one  can  tell.  Doubtless,  made  as  it 
was  of  comparatively  fragile  material,  it  long  since  wras  ground  to 
dust.  That  it  was  returned  to  the  Doctor’s  possession  is  shown  by 
his  letter  to  Houdon,  November  30,  1785 :2  “The  bust  is  returned 
perfectly  safe,  and  continues  to  be  the  admiration  of  all  that  see  it.” 
Surely,  after  this  array  of  contemporaneous  evidence,  now  brought 

1 Collection  of  the  New  York  Historical  Society,  1878,  p.  214. 

2 Autograph  Collection  of  Oliver  K.  Brooks,  Esq.,  Cleveland,  Ohio. 


20  6 


Life  and  Works  of 


together  for  the  first  time,  there  can  be  no  question  as  to  the  fact 
that  Houdon  did  model  his  bust  of  Washington  direct  from  life, 
and  not  from  the  mask  that  he  took  ex  majori  cautela.  That  he 
prized  this  mask,  however,  very  highly,  is  evidenced  by  the  fact 
that  when  he  returned  to  France,  reaching  his  home  on  Christmas 
day  of  1785,  he  took  with  him,  as  Jefferson  wrote  Washington, 
January  4,  1786, 1 “the  mould  of  the  face  only,  having  left  the  other 
parts  of  his  work  with  his  workmen  to  come  by  some  other  con- 
veyance.” 

Among  the  articles  thus  brought  to  him  by  his  workmen2  was  the 
bust  he  had  modeled  and  cast  at  Mount  Vernon.  This  bust  Hou- 
don preserved  with  as  reverent  care  as  he  did  the  life-mask,  until 
his  death ; and  at  the  sale  of  his  effects  it  was  bought  by  M.  Walfer- 
din,  who  bequeathed  it  to  the  Louvre,3  where  it  now  is,  and  from 
which  our  reproduction  has  been  made.  It  will  be  seen  to  be  very 
different  from  the  ordinary  commercial  “Houdon  bust  of  Wash- 
ington” ; and,  while  a comparison  between  it  and  the  life-mask  will 
show  a marked  similarity  in  form  and  contour,  the  bust  has  the 
advantage  of  the  mask  “in  spirit  and  expression,”  and  shows  plainly 


1 Randolph’s  Jefferson,  Vol.  I,  p.  393. 

2 “Houdon  is  arrived  in  Paris,  but  has  not  yet  brought  your  bust,  which  he  expects 
by  water  from  London.”  La  Fayette  to  Washington,  February  8,  1786.  Memoirs  and 
Correspondence  of  La  Fayette,  1837,  Vol.  II,  p.  125. 

3 “The  terra-cotta  original  bust  of  Washington,  modelled  from  life,  which  was  sold 
at  the  sale  of  the  artist’s  effects  in  1828  and  which  was  bought  by  M.  Walferdin,  was 
bequeathed  by  him  to  the  Louvre.”  Grimm-Diderot  Correspondance,  Paris,  1880,  Vol. 
XIV,  p.  297,  n. 


WA  S m I WtUrlF  (DOT 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  207 

that  Mr.  Story  never  could  have  studied  this  bust  in  the  Louvre, 
when  he  commented  upon  the  dissimilarity  between  the  two,  as  one 
of  the  reasons  for  his  claiming  that  the  bust  was  not  modeled  from 
life  but  from  the  mask  was  “the  nudity  of  the  neck  and  shoulders.”1 
The  original  bust  in  the  Louvre,  as  the  plate  shows,  is  draped,  with 
a tunic  and  band,  over  the  shoulders,  which  could  not  have 
escaped  Mr.  Story,  had  he  ever  seen  it.  He  doubtless  only  knew 
the  ordinary  casts  called  “Houdon’s  Washington,”  which  have  the 
neck  and  shoulders  bare,  and  which,  from  being  constantly  cast  and 
recast,  have  so  much  deteriorated  and  are  so  far  removed  from  the 
original  as  to  be  next  to  worthless.2 

The  bust  of  Washington  that  Houdon  presented  to  Franklin  was 
not  the  only  bit  of  his  handicraft  that  he  left  in  this  country. 
Among  his  belongings  that  did  not  arrive  here  until  he  had  been 
at  home  several  months,  were  a “Diana  and  several  other  works  of 
his  own  composition,”  of  which  Temple  Franklin  in  his  letter  to  M. 
le  Veillard,  already  cited,  says: 

I fear  that  we  shall  find  no  one  here  capable  of  putting  together  the 
principal  figures,  the  different  parts  of  which  having  been  separated  for 
convenience  in  packing.  As  it  is,  not  one  of  the  cases  has  been  as  yet 
opened,  awaiting  the  arrival  of  Mr.  Pyne,  the  Painter,  now  in  Mary- 

1 Delerot  and  Legrelle  also  err  in  saying  that  Houdon  modeled  his  bust  from  the 
cast  of  the  mould  of  Washington’s  face. 

2 A very  interesting  comparison  can  also  be  made  between  the  Houdon  original  bust, 
the  life-mask  and  Stuart’s  first  portrait  of  Washington,  when  the  harmony  of  the  three 
will  be  seen  to  be  very  convincing  as  to  their  truthfulness. 


208 


Life  and  Works  of 


land,1  to  whom  the  matter  was  confided.  I beg  of  you  to  inform  M. 
Houdon  of  this  and  assure  him  that  I shall  do  all  that  in  me  lies  for  the 
sale  of  the  objects  designed  to  be  sold. 

What  became  of  these  art  treasures  we  are  unable  to  say,  but 
we  know  from  the  letter  of  Dupont  de  Nemours  to  Jefferson,  that 
among  them  was  a marble  bust  of  Franklin  that  was  offered  for  sale 
to  the  State  of  Virginia  but  not  purchased. 

No  sooner  had  Houdon  returned  than  several  important  ques- 
tions arose  in  regard  to  the  statue ; the  most  essential  being  the  cos- 
tume in  which  Washington  should  be  represented,  and  the 
inscription  it  should  bear.  On  the  first  question,  Jefferson,  in  his 
letter  to  Washington  of  January  4,  1786,  writes: 

Dr.  Franklin,  who  was  joined  with  me  in  the  superintendence  of  this 
just  monument,  having  left  us  before  what  is  called  the  costume  of  the 
statue  was  decided  on,  I cannot  so  well  satisfy  myself,  and  I am  per- 
suaded I should  not  so  well  satisfy  the  world,  as  by  consulting  your  own 
wish  or  inclination  as  to  this  article.  Permit  me,  therefore,  to  ask  you 
whether  there  is  any  particular  dress,  or  any  particular  attitude,  which 
you  would  rather  wish  to  be  adopted. 

To  this  Washington  replied,  August  1,  1786 : 2 

In  answer  to  your  obliging  enquiries  respecting  the  dress,  attitude,  etc., 
which  I would  wish  to  have  given  to  the  statue  in  question,  I have  only  to 
observe  that,  not  having  sufficient  knowledge  in  the  art  of  sculpture  to 

1 Robert  Edge  Pine,  the  English  painter,  who  came  to  this  country  and  settled  in 
Philadelphia  in  1784,  and  died  there  in  1788.  It  is  not  at  all  unlikely  that  some  of  these 
works  of  Houdon  became  the  attraction  of  Pine’s  public  exhibition  of  works  of  art, 
which  after  his  death  were  sold  and  finally  became  the  nucleus  of  the  Boston  Museum 
collection,  as  in  the  latter,  when  dispersed  in  1892,  was  a Houdon  bust  of  Paul  Jones. 

2 Jefferson  MSS.,  Library  of  Congress. 


209 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon 

oppose  my  judgment  to  the  taste  of  Connoisseurs,  I do  not  desire  to  dic- 
tate in  the  matter.  On  the  contrary,  I shall  be  perfectly  satisfied  with 
whatever  may  be  judged  decent  and  proper.  I should  even  scarcely  have 
ventured  to  suggest  that  perhaps  a servile  adherence  to  the  garb  of  an- 
tiquity might  not  be  altogether  so  expedient  as  some  little  deviation  in 
favor  of  the  modern  costume,  if  I had  not  learned  from  Colo.  Humphrey 
that  this  was  a circumstance  hinted  in  conversation  with  Mr.  West  to 
Houdon.  This  taste  which  has  been  introduced  in  painting  by  Mr.  West, 
I understand  is  received  with  applause  and  prevails  extensively. 

There  is  nothing  whatever  to  indicate  that  Houdon  had  sug- 
gested the  classic  style  for  the  statue  of  Washington,  and  it  is  very 
unlikely  that  he  did,  but  what  was  doubtless  in  the  mind  of  Wash- 
ington, and  what  he  desired  to  guard  against,  when  he  replied  to 
Jefferson’s  inquiry  as  to  his  “wish  or  inclination”  on  the  subject  of 
costume,  was  the  provision  in  the  resolution  of  Congress  for  the 
equestrian  statue  that  “the  General  be  represented  in  a Roman 
dress,  holding  a truncheon  in  his  right  hand  and  his  head  encircled 
with  a laurel  wreath.”  But  it  is  quite  clear  that  Houdon  made  a 
sketch  or  model  for  the  statue  different  from  its  final  execution,  for 
a German  tourist  in  Paris,  quoted  by  Montaiglon  and  Duplessis 
(p.  326), 1 says  he  saw  in  the  sculptor’s  studio  a model  for  the  statue 
in  which  Washington  is  portrayed  in  the  character  of  the  Protector 
of  Agriculture.  Meyer  says : 

The  figure  is  clothed  in  the  plain  and  noble  habiliments  appropriate  to 
a man  of  rural  pursuits,  a light  pleated  vest,  half  buttoned,  sandals  on 

1 “Fragments  sur  Paris.  Par  Frederic- Jean-Laurent  Meyer.”  Translated  from  the 
German  by  Genl.  Dumouriez.  Hamburg,  1798.  Vol.  II,  p.  222. 


210 


Life  and  Works  of 


the  feet,  with  a cloak  fastened  across  the  chest  and  enveloping  the  back 
and  shoulders,  suggesting  protection  to  the  Agriculturist  against  bad 
weather.  One  hand  rests  upon  a walking-stick,  the  other  is  placed  upon 
the  Republican  Fasces,  crowned  by  a Liberty  cap.  At  his  feet  stands  a 
plough. 

And  this  explains  what  would  be  a puzzle  without  it.  On 
August  25,  1790,  after  Jefferson’s  return  home,  he  wrote  to  Wil- 
liam Short  in  Paris:1 

I must  beg  the  favor  of  you  to  get  Houdon  to  have  made  of  a light 
cheap  silk,  couleur  d’ardoise,  the  actual  costume  he  formed  for  the  Presi- 
dent’s statue.  It  consisted  of  a gilet  and  cloak,  which  fell  behind  the 
back  so  as  to  show  the  form  of  the  body  clear  of  it.  Let  it  be  made  of 
the  size  of  life.  This  is  not  meant  to  bring  into  doubt  the  original  order 
to  make  the  statue  in  the  real  costume,  to  wit,  the  military  uniform. 

But  the  puzzle  is  unanswered  as  to  the  purpose  for  which  Jeffer- 
son could  have  wanted  this  costume  of  the  discarded  sketch  and  in 
a special  color,  but  his  letter  confirms  Meyer’s  statement,  without 
which  we  might  have  been  a little  sceptical. 

The  objection  to  the  inscription,  raised  by  Houdon,  was  the  very 
just  one,  from  the  artistic  standpoint,2  that  it  was  too  long  to  be 
placed  upon  a pedestal  of  the  small  size  necessary  to  support  a life- 
size  statue,  and  the  result  was  that  when  the  statue  was  completed 
and  sent  to  Virginia,  the  pedestal  was  barren  of  any  inscription,  but 

1 Jefferson  MSS.,  Library  of  Congress. 

2 Jefferson  to  Madison,  February  8,  1786,  and  Madison  to  Jefferson,  May,  12,  1786. 
Jefferson  MSS.,  Library  of  Congress. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  211 

with  the  name  “George  Washington”  simply  cut  on  the  base  upon 
which  the  figure  stands,  and  “fait  par  houdon  Citoyen  frangais 
1788”  below  the  cane.  The  original  inscription,  as  provided  in  the 
Assembly’s  resolution,  written  by  Madison,  was,  however,  cut  upon 
the  pedestal  in  1814,  and  shows  what  a proper  appreciation  of  the 
situation  Houdon  entertained. 

The  “Memoires  Secrets,”  from  which  we  have  in  other  chapters 
quoted  so  generously,  announce  under  date  of  December  16,  1 786 : 1 
“M.  Houdon  began  to  show  to  amateurs  in  his  studio  the  bust  of 
General  Washington,  the  object  of  his  voyage  to  America  and  per- 
fectly modelled,  as  we  are  assured.”  And  in  the  issue  of  January 
27,  1787: 2 “This  work  is  finished  and  will  be  ready  for  the  next 
Salon,”3  where  it  was  exhibited  in  marble  and  catalogued  “259.  Le 
General  Washington  fait  par  l’auteur  dans  le  terre  de  ce  general 
en  Virginie.”  Of  it  Bachaumont  says,  on  the  day  of  the  opening, 
August  25,  1787 :4  “Here  is  . . . General  Washington,  whose  fine 
head  has  the  true  calm  of  the  real  hero  and  above  all  appropriate  to 
the  modern  Fabius,  but  having  little  resemblance,  according  to 
those  who  have  had  the  happiness  to  see  the  illustrious  American.” 
This  final  sentence  is  of  much  import  as  being  so  wholly  contrary 

1 Vol.  XXXIII,  p.  274.  2 Vol.  XXXIV,  p.  91. 

3 At  the  period  of  which  we  are  writing  the  Salon  opened  on  August  25  and  lasted  one 
month.  The  first  was  held  in  1737  and  thereafter  annually  until  1745,  after  which  they 
were  held  every  two  years  until  1796,  which  was  an  annual  exhibition.  Again  from 
1798  to  1802  they  were  held  annually,  after  which  they  were  held  every  two  years  until 
a comparatively  recent  date,  since  which  they  have  been  held  annually. 

4 Vol.  XXXVI,  p.  396. 


212 


Life  and  Works  of 


to  the  accepted  criticism  of  Houdon’s  work,  as  we  have  seen  in  the 
original  bust  modeled  at  Mount  Vernon  and  in  the  statue  at  Rich- 
mond, and  causes  us  to  pause  and  wonder  if  the  change  was  wrought 
by  the  chisel  of  the  practicien  in  transferring  the  model  into  stone.1 
The  whereabouts  of  this  marble,  exhibited  in  the  Salon  of  1787,  are 
unknown,  but  may  it  not  be  the  bust  from  which  the  commonly  seen 
casts  of  the  undraped  “Houdon’s  Washington”  were  made,  which, 
if  the  final  sentence  of  the  criticism  we  have  quoted  is  correct, 
might  account  for  their  dissimilarity  with  the  original  in  the 
Louvre? 

But  the  statue  that  bears  date  “1788”  was  not  completed,  it  would 
seem,  until  1791, 2 when  Gouverneur  Morris  records  in  his  diary,3 
under  date  of  July  13  : “At  eleven  go  to  breakfast  with  Lady  Suth- 
erland and  afterward  attend  her  to  M.  Houdon’s  to  see  the  statue  of 
Genl.  Washington.”  Even  then  the  State  of  Virginia  was  not  ready 
to  receive  it,  owing  to  the  incompleteness  of  the  State  Capitol,  at 
Richmond,  where  it  was  to  be  housed.  But  on  February  5,  1795, 
we  find  Governor  Brooke  writing  to  James  Monroe,  then  the 
American  envoy  to  France,  asking  him  to  ascertain  “the  situation 
of  the  business,”  as  the  statue  was  not  finished  when  Jefferson  left 
Paris,  “and  we  have  no  information  since  with  respect  to  its  prog- 

1 For  an  interesting  account  of  this  mechanical  part  of  sculpture,  see  Lawton’s  “Life 
and  Work  of  Auguste  Rodin,”  New  York,  1907,  pp.  28-30. 

2 Montaiglon  and  Duplessis,  p.  327,  citing  Le  Breton’s  Report  on  the  Fine  Arts,  make 
it  a year  later — 1792. 

3 Diary  of  Gouverneur  Morris,  New  York,  Vol.  I,  p.  433. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  213 

ress.”1  The  letter  was  delayed  in  reaching  Monroe,  but  he  ac- 
knowledged it  August  20,  promising  to  make  the  inquiries  desired, 
and  in  every  way  to  further  the  wishes  of  the  Executive  of  his  State. 
This  action  resulted  in  the  statue  being  shipped  at  Havre,  with  a 
workman  to  put  it  up,  toward  the  close  of  January,  1796,  on  the  ship 
Planter,  whereof  Ayres  Stockley  was  master,  bound  for  Philadel- 
phia. The  bill  of  lading  reads:  “For  account  and  risk  of  the  Gov- 
ernor and  Council  of  the  town  of  Richmond,  State  of  Virginia. 
Three  cases,  one  of  which  contains  the  marble  pedester  statue  of 
General  Washington,  and  the  two  others  contain  the  marble  pedes- 
tal of  said  statue,  weighing  together  thirty-six  thousand  pounds, 
weight  going  for  eighteen  tons,  being  marked  and  numbered  as  in 
the  margin,  and  to  be  delivered  in  like  good  order  at  the  aforesaid 
port  of  Philadelphia  (the  danger  of  the  seas  only  being  excepted), 
unto  the  order  of  Mr.  William  Pennock,  of  Norfolk,  Virginia,  who 
is  to  convey  the  same  to  said  Governor  and  Council  of  Richmond, 
or  to  his  order  or  assigns,  he  or  they  paying  freight  for  the  said 
goods.”2  The  statue  reached  Philadelphia  in  April,  and  it  was  at 
once  forwarded  to  Richmond,  where  it  was  placed  in  the  rotunda 
of  the  Capitol  on  the  main  floor,  between  the  House  of  Delegates 
and  the  Senate  Chamber,  on  the  14th  of  May,  1796,  apparently 
without  any  ceremony  or  exercises  whatever.3 

1 Governor’s  Letter-book,  Archives  of  Virginia. 

2 MS.  Archives  of  Virginia,  in  State  Library,  Richmond. 

3 The  freight  and  expenses  on  the  statue  from  France  were  $315.28;  and  the  cost  of 
putting  it  up,  $90  plus  £26  6s.  10 d. 


214 


Life  and  Works  of 


Three  years  before  the  delivery  of  the  statue,  Houdon  had  been 
paid,  literally,  the  full  amount  he  was  to  receive  for  the  work,  but 
the  last  payment  was  made  in  assignats,  the  depreciated  money  of 
the  French  Republic,  and  he  made  claim  for  payment  of  the  loss 
occasioned  by  the  depreciation.  This  claim  Monroe  communicated 
to  the  Executive  of  his  State,  July  29,  1796.  He  writes : 

I herewith  enclose  you  a note  of  the  amt.  of  what  I paid  to  Mr.  Hou- 
don, the  artist,  for  the  charges  annexed  and  which  he  requested  imme- 
diately. Mr.  Houdon  has  also  another  demand  of  abt.  the  like  sum  for 
depreciations  and  wh.  I promised  to  communicate  to  you  and  pay  him  in 
case  you  permitted.  I believe  from  his  statement  that  he  actually  lost 
that  amt.  and  in  that  mode,  but  at  the  same  time  I also  believe  the  State 
of  Virginia  did  not  profit  thereby,  as  likewise  that  the  only  claim  he  has, 
if  any,  is  upon  the  candor  and  liberality  of  the  State. 

Houdon  followed  this  up  with  a personal  letter  to  the  Governor 
under  date  of  September  8,  1796,  which  is  amusing  for  the  attempt 
at  English  in  which  it  is  written.1 

The  eight  July  1785  he  was  agreed  between  his  excellency  Mr.  Jeffer- 
son in  the  Virginia  state’s  name  and  me  that  I should  executed  in  marble 
the  statue  of  Mr.  Washington,  for  the  price  of  25,000  french  money  to  be 
paid  in  three  times— at  the  period  of  the  last  payment  at  the  end  of  1792, 
I received  9000  which  would  formed  the  whole  sum  I ought  to  received 
if  it  had  not  been  paid  in  assignats  who  losting  in  that  time  60/100  only 
give  the  value  of  5625  silver;  I remains  due  3375. 

By  a letter  to  his  excellency  Mr.  Morris  I immediately  claim  against 
this  sort  of  payment;  I enclose  here  the  answer  Mr.  Grand  make  for  him 
to  me— Mr.  Morris  and  Mr.  Short  didn’t  received  answer  from  the 
1 MS.  Archives  of  Virginia,  State  Library. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  2i5 

Virginia’s  state  to  the  several  letters  they  wrote  on  this  account.  When 
at  the  end  of  1795  his  excellency  Mr.  Monroe  ordered  the  Statutes  de- 
parture, I renewd  my  claim  for  being  paid  of  the  sum  of  3375  but  neither 
the  minister  or  the  consul  won’t  take  any  determination  on  this  object, 
they  and  me  wrote  to  the  Virginia’s  State  on  this  account,  but  again  no 
answer;  Now  I address  myself  directly  to  you  Sir,  and  I hope  you  will 
find  my  request  as  right  as  any  of  the  three  Ministers  above  mentioned, 
and  that  I shall  received  a satisfactory  answer.  I am  with  the  respect 
due  to  your  caracter  sir  of  your  excellency  the  most  obedient  servant, 

Houdon 

Sculpteur  au  Louvre  a Paris. 

Copie  de  la  lettre  de  M grand  a M houdon  Sculpteur  en  datte  du  28 
9bre  1792. 

M.  Morris  trouve  juste  la  reclamation  de  M.  houdon,  mais  comme 
if  ne  puis  disposer  des  fonds  du  Congres  sans  son  consentement,  il  en  fera 
la  demande  au  Congres,  main  en  attendant  il  conseille  a M houdon  de 
recevoir  toujours  le  solde  sur  un  cette  motive,  c’est  aussi  ce  que  peuse  M 
grand. 

Pour  copie  conforme.  Houdon.1 

What  action  was  taken  on  this  letter  at  the  time,  we  are  not  in- 
formed, but  the  claim  was  not  presently  adjusted  or  for  several 
years  thereafter  as  we  find  in  a letter  from  Jefferson  to  Monroe, 
when  the  latter  occupied  the  gubernatorial  chair  of  Virginia,  dated 
February  28,  1802, 2 commenting  upon  what  Dupont  de  Nemours 
had  written  to  him— “Houdon,  to  whom  Virginia  still  owes  a thou- 
sand crowns  on  the  statue  of  Washington,  is  in  great  need  of  the 

1 Houdon’s  chirography  is  extremely  difficult  to  decipher,  so  that  the  copyist  has  been 
unable  intelligently  to  render  it,  being,  as  it  is,  in  a foreign  language,  which  may  also 
in  part  account  for  some  of  the  peculiarities  in  his  English  letter  that  covered  this  one. 

2 Dreer  MSS.,  Pennsylvania  Historical  Society. 


21  6 


Life  and  Works  of 


money.”  He  says:  “In  the  latter  branch  of  the  quotation  I feel  a 
personal  interest  as  having  been  the  instrument  of  the  contract  of 
the  state.  But  I imagine  this  matter  must  hang  on  some  difficulty 
of  which  I am  uninformed.”  From  the  subsequent  correspondence 
it  would  seem  that  the  matter  had  simply  been  allowed  to  lie  dor- 
mant and  only  required  the  magic  wand  of  Jefferson  to  give  it  life 
and  bring  about  a just  settlement.  Thus  Monroe  answers  Jefferson 
under  date  of  March  14 : 1 “I  am  authorized  to  inform  you  that 
whatever  sum  you  state  to  be  due  shall  be  paid  on  yr.  certificate  of 
the  same.  I send  you  a letter  of  yours  to  Governor  Brooke,  one  of 
Houdon  to  the  Governor  of  Virg.,  and  a copy  of  one  from  the 
banker  Grand  to  Houdon,  certified  by  the  latter,  which  show  that 
the  contract  was  in  specie,  that  the  assignats  were  accepted  by  him, 
with  the  approbation  of  Mr.  Morris,  on  the  principle  and  in  the 
expectation  that  they  should  be  scaled.  I hope  and  presume  that 
Mr.  Morris  will  be  able  to  establish  the  facts,  not  known  to  you, 
necessary  to  adjust  the  account  to  your  satisfaction,  so  that  we  may 
be  able  to  pay  the  artist  what  is  justly  his  due.” 

But  it  was  not  until  Monroe  went  to  France,  the  following  year, 
to  negotiate  with  Livingston  for  the  cession  of  Louisiana,  thatthemat- 
ter  was  finally  settled  and  Houdon  received  his  due.  From  Paris, 
August  12,  1803,  Monroe  writes  to  the  Governor  of  Virginia: 

At  present  I have  only  to  . . . transmit  you  a receipt  from  the  artist 
Houdon  at  Paris  for  the  amount  of  his  claim  of  balance  due  him  on  ac- 
1 Hamilton’s  Monroe,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  339. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  217 

count  of  the  statue  of  Genl.  Washington,  which  I have  paid  him.  You 
will  recollect  . . . that  it  was  decided  that  the  artist  should  not  lose  by 
the  depreciation  of  the  paper  in  which  the  payment  was  made  to  him; 
that  the  payment  of  the  balance  claimed  was  only  delayed  to  have  been 
correctly  ascertained  by  Mr.  Jefferson.  On  my  arrival  in  Paris  this 
poor  man  applied  to  me  for  justice,  and  I thought  it  best  to  pay  him.  It 
did  not  suit  the  character  of  the  state  or  the  transaction  that  a just  claim 
should  be  delayed  on  account  of  that  statue. 

Accompanying  this  letter  was  a certificate  from  the  United  States 
commercial  agent  of  the  adjustment,  which  is  of  enough  interest  to 
print,  showing,  as  it  does,  that  the  statue  was  completed  in  Novem- 
ber of  1792,  when  the  last  payment  was  made. 

The  undersigned  Commercial  Agent  of  the  United  States  at  Paris, 
having  by  desire  of  James  Monroe,  Envoy  Extraordinary,  etc.,  to  the 
French  Republic,  examined  the  several  papers  exhibited  by  Mr.  Houdon 
in  support  of  his  claim  against  the  State  of  Virginia,  for  the  loss  by 
depreciation  on  the  sum  of  9000  Livres  paid  him  in  Assignats  by  the  late 
bankers  of  the  U.  S.,  Messrs.  Grand  & Co.,  on  the  29th  of  November, 
1792,  on  account  of  the  statue  of  General  Washington  made  by  him  for 
the  State  of  Virginia,  does  hereby  certify  that  by  the  scale  of  depreciation 
established  by  law  in  this  country  it  appears  that,  on  the  aforesaid  29th 
of  November,  1792,  the  sum  of  9000  Livres  in  assignats  was  worth 
6200  Livres  specie  and  therefore  that  the  said  Houdon  did  sustain  a loss 
of  2800  Livres.  In  witness  whereof  I have  signed  the  10th  of  June, 
1803,  at  Paris.  Fulmer  Skipwith. 

The  receipt  of  Houdon,  which  closes  the  transaction,  has  never 
been  printed.  It  is  as  follows: 

J’ai  regu  de  son  excellence  Monsieur  Monroe  pour  le  compte  de  l’etat 
de  Virginie  la  somme  de  deux  mille  huit  cent  Livres  pour  solde  ce  qui  me 


218 


Life  and  Works  of 


restait  du  sur  le  statue  pedestre  du  general  Washington  que  j’ai  executee 
et  livree  au  dit  etat.  Paris  ce  27  prairial  an  1 1 ; 16  juin  1803. 

Houdon. 

So  that  Houdon  was  not  only  underpaid  for  his  work,  as  we  have 
seen  by  the  testimony  of  Jefferson,  but  he  had  to  wait  eleven  years 
after  he  had  finished  the  statue  before  he  received  settlement  in  full 
for  it.  But  his  reward  was  far  greater  than  the  mere  dollars  he  was 
paid.  He  had  the  distinguished  honor  of  coming  in  close  personal 
relations  with  the  Pater  Patriae,  and  he  has  received  the  homage  of 
the  whole  American  people  for  his  great  work.  We  are  told  by  his 
son-in-law,  Raoul  Rochette,  that  his  visit  to  Mount  Vernon  was  an 
incident  in  his  life  “which  in  his  memory  always  shone  with  pe- 
culiar radiance,  for,  though  not  knowing  English  and  having  to 
speak  through  an  interpreter,  the  pleasure  of  having  been  close  to 
Washington  left  memories  which  he  was  fond  of  recurring  to  when 
many  others  of  various  kinds  had  long  been  forgotten.” 

While  persons  see  likenesses  through  many  different  visions,  no 
two  persons  seeing  exactly  alike,  yet  there  can  be  no  doubt,  from  the 
consensus  of  Washington’s  intimate  friends  and  contemporaries,  as 
well  as  from  the  known  skill  of  Houdon  as  a portrait  sculptor,  that 
future  generations  can  feel,  when  they  look  upon  his  statue  of 
Washington,  that  they  have  before  them  the  verisimilitude  of  the 
original  in  feature  and  in  stature.  At  the  same  time,  Houdon  was 
human,  and  Washington’s  supreme  manhood  seems  to  have  affected 
him,  as  it  did  so  many  of  the  artists  who  undertook  to  portray  the 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  219 

Father  of  his  Country,  so  that  our  sculptor  essayed  in  his  work  to 
convey  too  complete  an  idea  of  the  man  and  thus  has  overcrowded 
his  statue  with  symbolism.  The  cane,  the  sword,  the  ploughshare 
and  the  fasces  take  away  from  the  simple  dignity  and  majesty  of  the 
figure,  until  one  might  suppose  that  the  Father  of  his  Country 
needed  a support  on  either  side  or  in  boyish  awkwardness  knew  not 
what  to  do  with  his  hands.  The  truthfulness  and  artistic  qualities 
of  the  head  are  beyond  criticism,  and  must  be  accepted  as  the  canon 
of  comparison  for  all  other  portraits.1  As  they  approach  this  or 
fall  away  from  it,  their  relation  to  the  original  can  be  assigned. 
The  portrait  is  both  real  and  ideal,  the  perfection  of  true  art. 
Truth  has  not  been  sacrificed  to  imagination;  they  have  been 
blended  and  commingled,  but  not  lost  in  each  other.  It  is  a very 
dignified  statue,  but  being  the  exact  size  of  life— six  feet,  two  inches 
— and  elevated  on  its  pedestal  five  feet  above  the  floor,  appears 
smaller  than  life,  and  in  this  position  the  delicate  and  subtle  model- 
ing is  lost,  so  that  its  full  value  cannot  be  discerned.  The  pedestal 
should  be  sunk  in  a pit,  so  that  the  base  of  the  figure  would  be  on 
the  floor  line;  then  its  full  value  would  assert  itself  and  the  beauty 
of  Houdon’s  work  be  seen.  Unfortunately,  no  reproduction  gives 
an  adequate  idea  of  its  character,  and  therefore  scant  justice  is  done 
it  in  the  illustration,  which,  however,  is  the  best  we  have  ever  seen.2 

1 This  was  the  view  expressed  by  Gilbert  Stuart,  America’s  master  painter,  who 
placed  Houdon’s  bust  of  Washington  before  his  own  familiar  Athenaeum  head — the  one 
that  may  be  called  “the  household  Washington.”  His  first  portrait  of  Washington, 
however,  as  already  noted,  measures  well  up  with  the  Houdon  head. 

2 According  to  Montaiglon  and  Duplessis,  p.  325,  Houdon  “in  his  old  age”  made,  in 


220  Life  and  Works  of 

Mr.  Lorado  Taft,  the  well-known  sculptor,  says  of  this  statue:1 

The  head  and  shoulders  of  the  figure  are  superbly  illuminated  and  the 
effect  is  noble  beyond  any  expression  given  by  replicas2  of  the  statue  in 
other  localities.  The  workmanship  is  exceedingly  skilful  and  grows  upon 
one  with  study;  but  there  is,  it  must  be  confessed,  a feeling  of  leanness 
and  angularity  in  the  lower  portion  of  the  statue.  It  may  be  that  it  was 
inherent  in  the  subject,  and  it  is  doubtless  accentuated  by  the  costume — 
the  uniform  of  a Revolutionary  officer.  Whatever  may  be  the  cause, 
there  is,  in  spite  of  irreproachable  drawing,  an  effect  as  of  pasteboard  or 
tinware  about  the  lower  limbs.  This  is  further  enhanced  by  the  wide 
angle  of  the  feet,  wdiich  gives  the  figure  from  one  view  the  look  of  having 
been  cut  out  of  folded  paper  and  then  spread  open.  The  close-fitting 
nether  garments,  combined  with  their  “tightness”  of  treatment,  and  the 
unheroic  but  doubtless  circumstantial  swell  of  the  abdomen,3  produce  a 
result  more  curiously  individual  than  majestic,  until  the  eye  returns  to  the 
noble  head,  which  is  one  of  the  finest  examples  of  simplification  to  be 
found  in  modern  art.  It  has  in  it  the  serenity  and  greatness  of  all  time. 
Nearer  approach  discovers  the  perfection  of  drawing  and  of  marble  cut- 
ting in  the  gloved  right  hand,  which  rests  upon  a long  cane,  and  in  the 
bared  left,  which  lies  upon  a cloak  thrown  over  the  fasces— a bundle 
large,  tall,  and  insistingly  prominent.  This  strange  accessory  rests  in 
turn  upon  a ploughshare.  The  sharp  lines  of  cane  and  ploughshare  and 
fasces  are  unpleasant  and  unsculptural,  but  the  transfigured  head  wel- 
comes the  gaze  after  each  bewildering  excursion. 

the  year  io  (1802),  for  the  Gallery  of  the  Consuls,  a bust  of  Washington,  larger  than 
life,  which  is  in  the  Museum  at  Versailles.  They  add,  “It  is  singularly  tame,  feeble  and 
of  no  value  whatever.” 

1 “The  History  of  American  Sculpture,”  by  Lorado  Taft,  New  York,  1903,  p.  17. 

2 There  is  no  replica  of  the  statue  anywhere.  Mr.  Taft  doubtless  means  reproduction. 

3 The  “leanness  and  angularity”  of  Washington’s  legs,  as  also  the  “swell  of  the  abdo- 
men,” criticized  by  Mr.  Taft,  are  clearly  shown  likewise  in  Charles  Willson  Peale’s 
well-known  whole-length  portrait  of  the  General,  painted  in  1779.  Washington  was 
never  heavy  of  weight  for  his  large  frame. 


WAS  m I^CBTCCDM 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  221 

Houdon’s  statue  of  Washington  has  been  removed  from  its  con- 
secrated place  twice,  or  perhaps  three  times.  In  1851,  on  March 
21,  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia,  in  view  of  the  liability  to 
injury  and  destruction  of  the  statue,  provided  for  the  taking  of  casts 
of  the  statue  for  the  colleges  of  the  State;  but  it  was  not  until 
January  14,  1853,  that  any  steps  were  taken  to  carry  this  resolution 
into  effect,  when,  by  joint  resolution  of  the  Assembly,  William  J. 
Hubard,  of  Richmond,  was  authorized  to  take  casts  of  Houdon’s 
statue  of  Washington,  with  exclusive  rights  for  seven  years,  subject 
to  certain  limitations.  What  was  Hubard’s  particular  qualification 
for  this  work  I do  not  know,  but  his  early  life  would  not  seem  to 
have  been  spent  in  the  direction  to  equip  him  specially  for  the  diffi- 
cult art  of  bronze-founder.  Yet  he  did  his  work  well,  and  one  of 
his  reproductions  was  the  introduction  of  Felix  Regamey,  the  well- 
known  French  artist,  when  he  visited  this  country  in  1879,  to  Hou- 
don’s statue,  and  called  forth  his  high  praise.  Hubard  was 
English-born,  and  landed  in  New  York  a youth  of  seventeen,  with- 
in a few  days  of  La  Fayette’s  arrival  in  1824.1  He  was  under 
“management”  as  an  infant  prodigy,  being  advertised  as  several 
years  under  his  actual  age,  in  the  art  of  cutting  “with  common 
scissors  in  a few  seconds”  a correct  likeness  in  silhouette.  He  was 
exploited  in  New  York,  Boston  and  Philadelphia,  meeting  in  the 
latter  city  Thomas  Sully,  under  whose  guidance  he  essayed  paint- 

1 Vide  “The  Last  of  the  Silhouettists,”  by  Charles  Henry  Hart,  “The  Outlook”  for 
October  6,  1900. 


222 


Life  and  Works  of 


ing,  and  thereafter  he  was  known  as  an  expert  painter  of  whole- 
length  portraits  in  cabinet  size,  which  were  well  executed  and  full 
of  character.  He  finally  settled  in  Richmond,  Va.,  married,  and 
went  abroad  for  three  years’  study;  but  just  what  was  his  vocation 
in  Richmond  we  do  not  know  until  he  undertook  the  casting  of  the 
reproductions  of  the  Houdon  statue,  and  it  was  doubtless  at  the 
same  factory  where  this  peaceful  work  was  done  that  he  met  with 
his  death  in  February,  1862,  by  the  explosion  of  a shell  he  was  fill- 
ing with  a compound  of  his  own  invention  for  the  use  of  the  Con- 
federacy. 

It  was  three  years  after  Hubard  received  the  authority  to  make 
his  copies  of  Houdon’s  work  when  he  accomplished  the  task,  and  in 
March,  1856,  the  Governor  of  Virginia  was  authorized  to  pur- 
chase from  him  “a  bronze  cast  of  Houdon’s  statue  of  Washington 
to  be  placed  in  the  Military  Institute  at  Lexington,  Va.”  The 
price  paid  for  it  is  said  to  have  been  $10,000,  or  twice  as  much  as 
was  the  price  paid  Houdon  for  the  original.  This  is  an  interesting 
commentary  upon  the  comparative  commercial  values  of  the  work 
of  the  artist  and  of  the  artisan.  Hubard  made  in  all  six  casts  in 
bronze  of  the  statue,  which  are,  besides  the  one  mentioned,  respec- 
tively in  Raleigh,  North  Carolina,  in  Columbia,  South  Carolina,  in 
St.  Louis,  Missouri,  in  New  York  and  in  Washington,  the  latter 
being  the  only  one  owned  by  a private  person.  He  also  made  one 
plaster  cast  of  the  statue,  which  his  widow  sold  to  the  Government 
in  1870  for  $2000,  and  which  is  now  in  Statuary  Hall  of  the  Capi- 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  223 

tol,  but  is  much  impoverished  by  successive  coats  of  white  paint. 
Whether  the  statue  was  not  replaced  in  the  rotunda  of  the  Capitol 
when  Hubard  was  through  with  it,  or  whether  it  was  again  removed 
for  any  other  purpose,  we  do  not  know,  but  on  April  1,  1873,  it  was 
directed  to  be  restored  to  its  former  place  in  the  Capitol  and  an 
appropriation  was  made  “to  defray  the  expense  in  giving  that 
stability  to  the  floor  necessary  to  the  safety  of  the  statue.”  Thirty- 
one  years  later,  in  July  of  1904,  the  statue  was  again  removed  owing 
to  the  work  in  progress  for  remodeling  the  old  Capitol,  and  it  was 
housed  for  eighteen  months  in  an  iron  fire-proof  building,  con- 
structed specially  for  the  purpose,  in  Capitol  Square,  until  on 
January  6,  1906,  it  was  restored  to  its  wonted  place  in  the  rotunda. 

It  would  be  impossible  to  locate  all  of  the  Houdon  busts  of 
Washington  that  are  genuine;  the  majority  of  those  seen  are  not. 
Jefferson  doubtless  had  one,  as  Levasseur  in  his  “La  Fayette  in 
America,”1  speaks  of  seeing  in  Jefferson’s  dining-room  at  Monti- 
cello  “four  beautiful  busts  of  Washington,  Franklin,  La  Fayette 
and  Paul  Jones.”  These  four  busts  did  belong  to  the  Boston  Athe- 
naeum, and  are  so  recorded  in  the  Catalogue  of  the  Twenty-fifth 
Exhibition  in  1852. 2 In  the  Pavilion  National  de  la  Repubiique 
Frangaise,  at  the  World’s  Columbian  Exposition  in  1893,  there  was 
exhibited  a bronze  bust  of  Washington,  signed,  “HOUDON  FECIT,” 
which  the  French  official  catalogue  states  was  given  by  Houdon  to 

1 Vol.  I,  p.  215. 

2 Nos.  55,  56,  57  and  58.  “Original  Casts  of  the  busts  of  Washington,  Franklin, 
La  Fayette  and  Paul  Jones,  by  Houdon,  presented  by  the  artist  to  Mr.  Jefferson.” 


Life  and  Works  of 


224 

General  La  Fayette.  This  bronze,  being  signed,  has  a peculiar  in- 
terest, as  the  original  in  the  Louvre  is  not  signed,  neither  is  the  one 
that  belonged  to  Jefferson.  In  the  inventory  of  Washington’s  estate 
we  find,  in  the  study,  “One  Bust  of  General  Washington  in  Plaster 
from  the  Life.”  This  we  can  assume  with  almost  a certainty  was 
an  original  cast  by  Houdon  made  at  Mount  Vernon  in  October, 
1785.  It  is  said  to  have  remained  at  Mount  Vernon  until  1849, 
when  the  proprietors  gave  permission  to  Clark  Mills,  the  sculptor, 
to  copy  it,  who,  it  is  claimed,  left  a reproduction  at  Mount  Vernon 
in  place  of  the  original,  which  he  kept  and  gave  in  1873  to  one 
Wilson  MacDonald  of  New  York.  But  from  reproductions  of  the 
bust  in  MacDonald’s  possession,  it  is  plainly  very  different  from 
the  original  in  the  Louvre,  so  that  the  story  which  so  badly  be- 
smirches Clark  Mills  does  not  bear  the  guinea-stamp  and  must  be 
relegated  to  the  realm  of  romance,  where  on  its  face  it  would  seem 
to  belong. 

In  the  fall  of  1881,  at  the  time  of  the  celebration  of  the  centennial 
anniversary  of  the  surrender  at  Yorktown,  a body  of  distinguished 
Frenchmen  visited  this  country  as  official  representatives  of  the 
French  government,  and  among  them  came  again  M.  Regamey. 
This  time  he  visited  Richmond,  and  saw  Houdon’s  original  marble, 
which  so  much  impressed  him  that  he  made  an  official  report  to 
the  Minister  of  Arts,  urging  that  France  should  secure  a reproduc- 
tion to  be  placed  in  the  Louvre  by  the  side  of  the  Diana.  He 
says:  “My  astonishment  was  great  to  discover  in  the  Capitol  at 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  225 

Richmond  a masterpiece  of  French  statuary  generally  ignored  in 
France— the  statue  of  General  Washington  by  Houdon.  Im- 
mediately it  struck  me  that  we  could  not  remain  without  a repro- 
duction of  this  work  in  Paris.”  Although  he  continued  at  frequent 
intervals  to  agitate  the  subject  by  communications  to  “Le  Figaro” 
and  by  the  publication  of  a brochure  as  late  as  1905,  nothing,  un- 
fortunately, had  resulted  from  his  efforts  at  the  time  of  his  death 
three  years  later.  But  had  his  life  been  spared  for  a few  years  more, 
he  would  have  seen  that  the  seed  he  had  planted  bore  some  fruit. 
The  State  of  Virginia,  having  had  a cast  in  bronze  made  of  the 
Houdon  statue  of  Washington  to  be  placed  in  the  rotunda  of  the 
National  Capitol,  determined  to  present  a duplicate  to  France,  and 
on  August  18,  1910,  it  was  officially  presented  to  the  French  gov- 
ernment and  placed,  with  appropriate  ceremonial,  in  the  Museum 
at  Versailles.  While  this  gives  France  a copy  of  the  famous  Hou- 
don Washington,  its  location  puts  it  upon  a historical  rather  than 
an  artistic  basis,  and  still  leaves  the  Salle  Houdon,  in  the  Louvre, 
without  this  art  treasure.  On  the  occasion  of  its  installation  M. 
Etienne  Charles  wrote  in  “La  Liberte”:  “Houdon’s  Washington 
represents  less  the  successful  general  in  the  War  of  Independence 
than  the  organizer  who  carries  in  his  brain  a complete  plan  of  gov- 
ernment, less  the  man  of  action  and  more  the  thinker.  What  par- 
ticularly attracts  one  in  his  countenance  is  his  expression  of  gravity, 
of  steady  reflection  and  perfect  calm,  — all  in  him  reveals  method, 
reflection,  foresight  and  admirable  balance.” 


CHAPTER  XI 

1785-1790 

MARQUIS  DE  LA  FAYETTE-BUSTS  FOR  AMERICA  AND  FOR  FRANCE- 
DESTRUCTION  OF  THE  LATTER,  AUGUST  10,  1792 

ILBERT  DU  MOTIER,  Marquis  de  la  Fayette,  who 
was  appointed  by  the  Continental  Congress  a Major- 
General  in  its  army  before  he  was  twenty  years  of  age, 
and  whose  first  important  duty  upon  his  return  from  France  in 
1780  was  to  sit  upon  the  court-martial  that  condemned  Andre  to 
death,  was  sent  to  Virginia  early  in  1781  to  oppose  the  invasion  of 
that  State  by  the  traitor  Arnold  with  a British  force.  La  Fayette 
successfully  kept  the  enemy  at  bay  until  Washington  and  Rocham- 
beau  reached  the  Chesapeake  early  in  September,  unknown  to 
Cornwallis,  to  prevent  whose  escape  La  Fayette  threw  his  troops 
across  the  peninsula  at  Williamsburg,  thus  cutting  off  Cornwallis’s 
retreat  and  sealing  his  doom  at  Yorktown,  October  17,  1781.  Vir- 
ginia recognized  that  she  owed  her  deliverance  to  the  young 
French  officer  who  had  just  entered  his  twenty- fifth  year,  and 
whose  conduct  of  this  campaign  proved  him  to  be  endowed  with  the 
highest  qualities  of  generalship.  Accordingly,  two  months  later, 
on  December  17,  1781,  the  House  of  Delegates  adopted  the  follow- 
ing resolution:1 

1 Hening’s  “Statutes  of  Virginia,”  Vol.  X,  p.  569. 


226 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  227 

“ Resolved  unanimously , that  a Bust  of  the  Marquis  de  la  Fayette 
be  directed  to  be  made,  in  Paris,  of  the  best  marble  employed  for 
such  purpose,  and  presented  to  the  Marquis  with  the  following  in- 
scription on  it ; — 

“This  bust  was  voted  on  the  17th  day  of  December,  1781,  by  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  of  the  State  of  Virginia,  to  the  Honorable  the  Marquis 
de  la  Fayette  (Major  General  in  the  service  of  the  United  States  of 
America  and  late  Commander-in-Chief  of  the  army  of  the  United  States 
in  Virginia),  as  a lasting  monument  of  his  merit  and  of  their  gratitude. 

“ Resolved , that  the  Commercial  Agent  be  directed  to  employ  a 
proper  person  in  Paris  to  make  the  above  Bust.” 

Owing  to  the  omission  to  name  the  Governor  of  the  State  as  the 
person  to  carry  out  this  resolution,  as  also  the  fact  that  the  commer- 
cial agent  named  therein  had  resigned  before  the  passage  of  the  act, 
nothing  was  done  in  the  premises  further  than  to  communicate  a 
copy  of  the  resolution  to  La  Fayette.  This  apparent  discourtesy 
La  Fayette  mentioned  in  a letter  to  Washington  of  September  8, 
1783  and  Washington,  acknowledging  the  letter  on  February  1, 
1784, 2 says:  “From  a letter  which  I have  just  received  from  the 
Governor  of  this  State,  I expect  him  here  in  a few  days,  when  I 
shall  not  be  unmindful  of  what  you  have  written  about  the  bust, 
and  I will  endeavor  to  have  matters  respecting  it  placed  on  their 
proper  basis.” 

1 Unfortunately,  this  letter  is  not  preserved  in  the  collection  of  letters  to  Wash- 
ington in  the  Library  of  Congress  at  Washington,  D.  C. 

2 Ford’s  “Writings  of  Washington,”  Vol.  X,  p.  349. 


228 


Life  and  Works  of 


Governor  Harrison  did  visit  Mount  Vernon  on  March  29th,  and 
immediately  upon  his  return  to  Richmond,  laid  the  matter  before 
his  Council,  and  the  minutes  contain  this  entry:1 

Monday,  April  5,  1784.  The  Governor  having  laid  before  the  Board 
a resolution  of  the  General  Assembly  passed  on  the  17th  of  December, 
1781,  directing  a Bust  of  the  Marquis  Fayette  to  be  made,  in  Paris,  of 
the  best  marble  employed  for  such  purposes,  and  presented  to  him  as  a 
lasting  monument  of  his  merit,  and  of  their  gratitude,  which  resolution 
has  never  been  executed;  It  is  advised  that  his  Excellency  write  to  Mr. 
Barclay,  the  American  Consul  at  Nantz,  enclosing  a copy  of  the  said 
resolution,  and  requesting  to  have  it  carried  into  effect;  and  the  better  to 
enable  him  to  do  this  business,  His  Excellency  is  advised  to  draw  on  the 
Contingent  Fund  for  160  pounds  sterling  and  transmit  it  to  Mr.  Barclay, 
desiring  him  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  Bust  thereout. 

The  same  day  Governor  Harrison  wrote  to  Thomas  Barclay, 
agent  at  Nantes:2 

Sir:  In  Council,  April  5,  1784. 

I enclose  you  a resolution  of  the  Assembly  of  this  Commonwealth 
which  I request  the  favor  of  you  to  have  carried  into  immediate  execu- 
tion, and  by  one  of  the  best  artists  that  can  be  procured.  The  cause  of 
its  being  so  long  delayed  will  appear  on  the  face  of  the  resolution,  which 
directs  the  Commercial  Agent  to  carry  it  into  effect,  which  officer  resigned 
his  appointment  before  the  resolution  ever  came  to  his  hands  and  it  was 
not  thought  advisable  to  give  him  a successor.  It  may  be  necessary  to 
explain  to  you  why  the  business  was  not  taken  up  by  me  sooner,  to  enable 
you  to  give  an  answer,  if  the  question  should  be  asked,  or  you  should 
think  it  proper  to  make  an  apology  to  the  Marquis  (for  whom  no  man 

1 MS.  Council  Journal,  Virginia,  1783,  1784,  1785,  p.  70.  State  Library,  Richmond,  Va. 

2 MS.  Letter-book  of  Benjamin  Harrison,  1783  to  1786,  p.  291.  State  Library, 
Richmond,  Va. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  229 

on  earth  has  a greater  or  more  perfect  esteem  and  regard  than  I have), 
for  the  seeming  neglect.  The  usual  and  indeed  proper  channel  thro’ 
which  the  resolution  should  have  been  transmitted  was  the  Executive  of 
the  State,  which  the  Assembly  not  adverting  to  or,  for  some  other  cause, 
not  known  to  me,  directed  their  Speaker  to  perform.  From  this  cause  I 
became  a stranger  to  the  steps  that  had  been  taken,  ’til  I was  the  other 
day  informed,  by  my  friend  General  Washington,  that  the  Speaker  had 
not  attended  farther  to  the  vote  of  the  Assembly,  than  transmitting  the 
resolution,  and  that  the  Marquis  had  not  received  the  intended  compli- 
ment. I have  herewith  sent  you  a Bill  of  Exchange  of  Wm.  Alexander  & 
Co.  for  one  hundred  and  sixty  pounds  sterling,  which  you  will  apply  in 
the  first  instance  for  the  above  purpose  of  paying  for  the  bust,  and  the 
remainder  to  the  credit  of  the  state  with  yourself,  in  part  of  the  compen- 
sation so  justly  due  to  you,  for  the  services  you  have  rendered  her. 

It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  period  of  which  we  are  writing 
was  not  the  era  of  steam  and  of  electricity,  and  that  it  required 
months  for  the  transmission  of  letters  from  America  to  Europe  and 
return;  for,  not  only  was  the  passage  a long  one,  but  the  ships  that 
carried  the  mails  were  few  and  far  between,  so  that  before  Barclay 
could  receive  his  advices  and  progress  very  far  with  his  commis- 
sion, the  Legislature  of  Virginia,  for  some  reason  that  we  know  not 
of,  made  a change  in  the  destination  of  the  bust,  which  change  is 
made  to  wear  an  air  of  mystery,  by  the  careful  silence  preserved 
regarding  it  in  all  subsequent  correspondence  and  proceedings. 
However  this  may  be,  on  December  i,  1784,  the  House  of  Dele- 
gates enacted  another  law,  reciting  the  earlier  one,  and,  without 
any  explanation,  changed  the  destination  of  the  bust.1 

1 Hening’s  “Statutes  of  Virginia,”  Vol.  XI,  p.  553. 


230 


Life  and  Works  of 


“Whereas,  it  was  unanimously  resolved,  on  the  17th  day  of 
December,  1781,  that  a bust  of  the  Marquis  de  la  Fayette  be  di- 
rected to  be  made  in  Paris,  of  the  best  marble  employed  for  such 
purposes,  with  the  following  inscription:  [ Vide  p.  227.] 

“Resolved  unanimously , that  the  Governor,  with  the  advice  of  the 
Council,  be  authorized  and  desired  to  defray  the  expense  of  carry- 
ing the  said  vote  into  execution,  out  of  the  fund  allotted  for  the 
contingencies  of  government;  that  he  cause  said  bust  to  be  pre- 
sented, in  the  name  of  the  Commonwealth,  to  the  city  of  Paris,  with 
a request  that  the  same  may  be  accepted  and  preserved  in  some  pub- 
lic place  of  the  said  city. 

“Resolved  unanimously,  that  as  a further  mark  of  the  lasting 
esteem,  of  this  Commonwealth,  for  the  illustrious  qualities  and  ser- 
vices of  the  Marquis  de  la  Fayette,  the  Governor,  with  the  advice 
of  the  Council,  be  authorized  and  desired  to  cause  another  bust  of 
him,  with  a similar  inscription,  to  be  procured  by  draught  on  the 
said  fund,  and  that  same,  when  procured,  be  fixed  in  such  public 
place,  at  the  seat  of  government,  as  may  hereafter  be  appointed  for 
the  erection  of  the  statue  voted  by  the  General  Assembly  to  General 
Washington.” 

At  this  time  Patrick  Henry  was  Governor  of  Virginia,  and  he 
communicated  the  new  enactment  to  La  Fayette  in  the  following 
letter:1 

1 Henry’s  “Life  of  Patrick  Henry,”  Vol.  II,  p.  262. 


231 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon 


In  Council,  January  29,  1785. 

When  the  duties  of  office  correspond  with  the  feelings  of  the  indi- 
vidual, there  is  a double  pleasure  in  discharging  them.  This  satisfaction 
I feel  most  sensibly  when  I forward  the  enclosed  and  am  happy  in  the 
opportunity  of  assuring  you  how  perfectly  I coincide  in  opinion,  with  the 
Legislature,  on  this  subject.  That  the  gratitude  of  those  who  claim  you 
as  their  fellow-citizen  may  be  as  conspicuous,  as  the  merit  it  wishes  to 
perpetuate,  the  Bust,  which  was  to  have  been  presented  to  yourself,  is 
now  to  be  erected  in  the  city  of  Paris,  and  as  we  cannot  have  the  happi- 
ness of  your  personal  residence,  another  is  to  grace  our  capitol,  which 
none  will  behold  with  more  lively  sensations  of  affection  and  admiration 
than,  Sir, 


Yours, 


P.  Henry. 


To  Barclay  and  Jefferson  the  Governor  forwarded  copies  of  the 
act  under  cover  of  June  16,  1785, 1 saying  to  each:  “The  enclosed 
resolution  will  inform  you  of  the  change  which  has  taken  place  re- 
specting the  Bust  formerly  voted  to  the  Marquis  de  la  Fayette.” 
Barclay  had  already  selected  Houdon  as  the  sculptor  for  the  La 
Fayette  bust,  doubtless  not  only  because  he  was  the  greatest  living 
sculptor,  but  because  he  had  been  chosen  as  well  to  make  the  statue 
of  Washington,  also  for  Virginia.  On  August  23,  1785,  Barclay 
wrote  Governor  Henry:2 

I had  the  honor  of  receiving  by  the  last  packet  the  letter  which  you 
wrote  me  of  the  16  June,  together  with  the  Resolutions  of  the  Assembly, 
respecting  the  Busts  of  the  Marquis  de  la  Fayette,  and  I beg  leave  to 

1 Governor’s  MS.  Letter-book,  p.  464.  State  Library,  Richmond,  Va. 

2 Calendar  of  State  Papers  of  Virginia,  Vol.  IV,  p.  49. 


2^2 


Life  and  Works  of 


assure  you  that  my  endeavors  shall  not  be  wanting  to  accomplish  matters 
agreeable  to  your  wishes.  M.  Houdon,  who  embarked  for  America  with 
Dr.  Franklin,  made  a considerable  progress  in  executing  the  first  bust 
that  was  ordered,  but  the  Marquis  being  at  present  in  Prussia,  the  matter 
must  rest  until  he  and  M.  Houdon  return.  I think  it  will  be  better  that 
the  same  person  compleat  both  the  Busts;  the  more  so  as  he  is  at  the  top 
of  his  profession.  The  cost  of  each  will  be  3000  Livres,  and  I have  paid 
50  Louis  d’ors  for  the  purchase  of  the  marble  for  the  first. 

The  day  previous  Jefferson  had  similarly  advised  the  Governor:1 

I shall  render  cheerfully  any  services  I can,  in  aid  of  Mr.  Barclay,  for 
carrying  this  resolution  into  effect.  The  Marquis  de  la  Fayette  being  to 
pass  into  Germany  and  Prussia,  it  was  thought  proper  to  take  the  model 
of  his  bust  in  plaister  before  his  departure.  Monsieur  Houdon  was  en- 
gaged to  do  it,  and  did  it  accordingly.  So  far  Mr.  Barclay  had  author- 
ized himself  to  go  in  consequence  of  orders  formerly  received.  . . . 
There  is  due  to  M.  Houdon  for  the  model  of  the  busts  of  the  Marquis 
de  la  Fayette,  in  plaister,  I imagine  about  750.0.0. 

The  bust  of  La  Fayette,  thus  begun  before  Houdon  left  France 
for  America,  was  completed  soon  after  his  return,  as  on  January  24, 
1786,  we  find  Jefferson  telling  the  Governor  of  Virginia,  in  a letter 
already  cited,  “The  first  of  the  Marquis’s  busts  will  be  finished  next 
month.  I shall  present  that  one  to  the  city  of  Paris,  because  the 
delay  has  been  noticed  by  some.  I hope  to  be  able  to  send  another 
to  Virginia  in  the  course  of  the  summer.”  That  Houdon  came  up 
to  time  with  the  first  of  the  busts  seems  assured  from  a letter  that 
Jefferson  wrote  to  M.  de  Reyneval,  May  17,  1786: 2 

1 Jefferson  MSS.,  Library  of  Congress,  Washington,  D.  C.,  Series  I,  Vol.  I,  No.  168. 

2 Ibid. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  233 

Mr.  Jefferson  has  the  honor  of  presenting  his  compliments  to  Mons. 
de  Reyneval  and  of  recalling  to  his  attention  the  subject  he  had  the  honor 
of  mentioning  yesterday  relative  to  the  bust  of  the  Marquis  de  la  Fay- 
ette. The  state  of  Virginia,  sensible  of  the  services  rendered  them  in 
particular  by  this  worthy  officer,  directed  his  bust  to  be  made  in  marble 
and  to  be  presented  to  the  city  of  Paris,  with  a request  that  it  might  be 
placed  so  as  to  do  honour  to  the  Marquis  de  la  Fayette.  Mr.  Jefferson 
has  been  told  that  he  should  address  himself,  for  this  purpose,  to  the 
Prevot  and  Echevins  of  Paris.  Before  he  takes  this  step,  however,  he 
wishes  to  know  whether  the  respect  due  to  the  King,  and  his  Ministers, 
would  require  from  him  a previous  reference  of  the  subject  to  them. 
Monsieur  de  Reyneval’s  information  herein  would  be  considered  very 
friendly. 

The  approval  of  the  King,  it  seems,  was  necessary,  and,  obtained 
after  some  delays,  was  communicated  through  the  Baron  de  Bre- 
teuil,  Minister  of  State,  whereupon,  the  preliminaries  having  been 
arranged,  Jefferson  wrote  to  the  Prevot  des  Marchands  et  Echevins 
de  Paris,  September  27,  1786:1 

The  Commonwealth  of  Virginia,  in  gratitude  for  the  services  of 
Major  General  the  Marquis  de  la  Fayette,  have  determined  to  erect  his 
bust  in  their  capital.  Desirous  to  place  a like  monument  of  his  worth 
and  of  their  sense  of  it  in  the  country  to  which  they  are  indebted  for  his 
birth,  they  have  hoped  that  the  city  of  Paris  will  consent  to  become  the 
depository  of  this  second  testimony  of  their  gratitude.  Being  charged 
by  them  with  the  execution  of  their  wishes,  I have  the  honor  to  solicit  of 
Messieurs  le  Prevot  des  Marchands  et  Echevins,  on  behalf  of  the  city, 
their  acceptance  of  a bust  of  this  gallant  officer,  and  that  they  will  be 
pleased  to  place  it  where,  doing  most  honor  to  him,  it  will  most  gratify 
1 Jefferson  MSS.,  Library  of  Congress,  Washington,  D.  C. 


234 


Life  and  Works  of 


the  feelings  of  an  allied  nation.  It  is  with  true  pleasure  that  I obey  the 
call  of  that  Commonwealth  to  render  just  homage  to  a character,  so 
great  in  its  first  developments,  that  they  would  honor  the  close  of  any 
other.  ...  It  would  have  been  more  pleasing  to  me  to  have  executed 
this  office  in  person,  . . . but  I am  withheld  from  these  grateful  duties 
by  the  consequences  of  a fall  which  confines  me  to  my  room.  Mr.  Short, 
therefore,  a citizen  of  the  state  of  Virginia,  . . . will  have  the  honor 
of  delivering  you  this  letter,  together  with  the  resolution  of  the  General 
Assembly  of  Virginia.  He  will  have  that,  also,  of  presenting  the  bust  at 
such  time  and  place  as  you  will  be  so  good  as  to  signify  your  pleasure  to 
receive  it,  through  him. 

This  letter  being  merely  the  formal  announcement,  after  all  ar- 
rangements had  been  made,  the  presentation  took  place  the  next 
day,  at  the  Hotel  de  Ville,  by  the  Honorable  William  Short,  Secre- 
tary of  the  Legation  of  the  United  States,  and  was  made  quite  a 
matter  of  ceremony.  M.  le  Pelletier  de  Mortfontaine,  Councilor  of 
State  and  Mayor  of  the  city  of  Paris,  presided;  the  letter  of  Mr. 
Jefferson  and  the  resolutions  of  the  State  of  Virginia  were  read  by 
M.  Veytard,  the  Chief  Recorder,  which  was  followed  by  a discourse 
pronounced  by  M.  Ethis  de  Corny,  the  Attorney-General,  who  had 
been  with  La  Fayette  in  America  and  was  a member  of  the  Society 
of  the  Cincinnati.  After  its  conclusion,  de  Corny  gave,  in  his  offi- 
cial capacity,  the  requisite  instructions  necessary  for  the  reception 
of  the  bust  agreeably  to  the  wishes  of  the  King,  and  the  bust  was 
placed,  to  the  sound  of  military  music,  on  the  mantelpiece  to  the 
right  of  the  great  hall  of  the  Hotel  de  Ville. 

This  graceful  action  of  Virginia  was  deeply  appreciated  by  La 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  235 

Fayette,  as  will  be  seen  by  his  letter  to  Washington  of  October  26, 
1786. 1 He  writes: 

A new  instance  of  the  goodness  of  the  state  of  Virginia  has  been  given 
me,  by  the  placing  of  my  bust  at  the  Hotel  de  Ville  of  this  city.  The  situ- 
ation of  the  other  bust  will  be  the  more  pleasing  to  me  as,  while  it  places 
me  within  the  capitol  of  the  State,  I shall  be  eternally  by  the  side  of,  and 
paying  an  everlasting  homage  to,  the  statue  of  my  beloved  general. 

Bachaumont  says:2  “Every  one  is  going  to  the  Hotel  de  Ville  to 
see  the  bust  of  M.  the  Marquis  de  la  Fayette,  executed  by  the  Sieur 
Houdon  and  placed  in  one  of  the  rooms  of  the  building  with  much 
ceremony  and  pomp.”  Later  in  the  month,  Jefferson  wrote  to  M. 
de  Corny,  asking  for  a report  of  the  proceedings  attending  the  in- 
auguration of  the  bust,  that  he  might  forward  them  to  the  Gov- 
ernor of  Virginia.  The  conclusion  of  the  letter  shows  that  M.  de 
Corny  was  of  no  little  aid  in  carrying  out  the  project.3 

Your  goodness,  already  so  often  manifested  in  this  business,  encour- 
ages me  to  endeavor  to  obtain  these  through  your  intervention.  I do  it 
the  rather  as  it  furnishes  me  an  occasion,  very  grateful  to  my  feelings, 
of  returning  to  you,  at  the  same  time,  my  sincere  thanks  for  the  zeal  with 
which  you  have  seconded  the  views  of  the  state,  the  readiness  with  which 
you  have  condescended  to  give  me  information  in  the  course  of  the  pro- 
ceedings and  to  secure  by  your  influence  the  success  of  these  proceedings. 

There  was  considerable  delay  attending  the  securing  of  this  re- 

1 “Memoirs,  Correspondence  and  Manuscripts  of  General  La  Fayette.”  Published 
by  his  family.  London,  1837,  Vol.  II,  p.  148. 

2 “Memoires  Secrets,”  October  6,  1786,  Vol.  XXXIII,  p.  90. 

3 Washington’s  Jefferson,  Vol.  II,  p.  44. 


Life  and  Works  of 


236 

port,  and  Jefferson  was  unable  to  forward  it  until  February  of  the 
following  year.  With  it  he  writes  to  Governor  Randolph:1 

The  principle  that  the  King  is  the  sole  fountain  of  honour  in  this  coun- 
try opposed  a barrier  to  our  desires  which  threatened  to  be  insurmount- 
able. No  instance  of  a similar  proposition  from  a foreign  power  had 
occurred  in  their  history.  The  admitting  it  in  this  case  is  a singular  proof 
of  the  King’s  friendly  disposition  towards  the  states  of  America,  and  of 
his  personal  esteem  for  the  Marquis  de  la  Fayette. 

The  second  bust  of  La  Fayette,  made  for  Virginia  by  Houdon, 
was  exhibited  at  the  Salon  of  1787,  and  catalogued,  “256.  M.  le 
Marquis  de  la  Fayette.  Buste  marbre,  pour  les  Etats  de  la  Ver- 
ginie.”  The  only  contemporary  remark  upon  the  bust  that  I find, 
while  possibly  true,  is  not  complimentary  to  the  subject,  “Whose 
face  is  rather  simple  than  ingenuous,”2  but  adds  that  it  does  “honor 
to  the  precision”  of  Houdon’s  chisel.  The  bust  was  not  forwarded 
to  Virginia  until  late  in  the  year  1788,  by  Andre  Limozin,  who  ad- 
vised the  Governor  from  Havre  on  November  nth,3  “I  have  con- 
signed to  your  Excellency,  on  board  the  American  ship  Sally , 
Kennedy  Master,  bound  for  Baltimore,  a large  box,  containing 
Marquis  de  la  Fayette’s  bust,  for  which  I enclose  the  bill  of  lad- 
ing.” This  letter  was  laid  before  the  Council  by  the  Governor  on 
January  29,  1789, 4 when  it  was  “ordered  that  the  Governor  take 

1 Washington’s  Jefferson,  Vol.  IV,  p.  118. 

2 “Memoires  Secrets,”  August  25,  1787,  Vol.  XXXVI,  p.  396. 

3 Calendar  of  Virginia  State  Papers,  Vol.  IV,  p.  512. 

4 MS.  Council  Journal,  October,  1787,  to  April,  1789,  p.  506.  State  Library  at 
Richmond. 


]L  AIT  AIT  M T T M 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  237 

measures  for  bringing  the  said  bust  here”;  and  on  June  30th,  “an 
account  of  John  Groves  amounting  to  2 pounds,  17  shillings  and 
3 pence  for  freight  and  expenses  of  bringing  the  Marquis  Fayette’s 
bust  from  Maryland,”  was  ordered  paid.1  This  is  the  last  record 
we  have  been  able  to  find  concerning  this  bust.  We  do  not  know 
when  it  was  put  in  the  place  it  was  destined  to  occupy  for  many 
years— a niche  in  the  wall  of  the  rotunda  of  the  State  Capitol, 
above  the  line  of  vision,  opposite  to  Houdon’s  statue  of  Washing- 
ton ; but,  as  the  building  was  not  finished  until  1796,  it  probably  was 
put  in  place  at  the  same  time  that  the  statue  of  Washington  was 
erected.  The  reproduction  shows  that  the  nose  has  at  some  time 
been  broken  off  and  restored,  but  when  and  how  the  injury  oc- 
curred, nothing  but  varied  and  uncertain  traditions  remains,  the 
most  commonly  accepted  being  that  at  the  time  of  La  Fayette’s  visit 
to  Richmond,  in  October  of  1824,  the  bust  was  taken  down  from  its 
niche,  to  be  used  in  the  decorations  for  his  reception,  when  it  fell 
and  received  this  fracture.  This,  not  unlikely,  is  correct,  as  it  would 
account  for  the  wording  of  a report  in  the  Richmond  newspapers 
of  La  Fayette’s  reception,  which  says: 

At  the  north  entrance  gate  of  Capitol  Square,  there  was  an  ornamental 
quadrangular  pedestal  on  which  it  was  intended  to  place  the  marble  bust 
of  La  Fayette  in  the  Capitol. 

The  use  of  the  word  “intended”  shows  clearly  that  the  bust  was 
not  placed  on  the  pedestal,  but  no  reason  is  given  for  its  not  being  so 

1 MS.  Council  Journal,  April,  1789,  to  October,  1791,  p.  78.  State  Library,  Richmond. 


Life  and  Works  of 


238 

placed,  which  may  very  well  have  been  the  accidental  fall  that  dis- 
figured the  face  so  that  it  could  not  be  exhibited  in  the  presence  of 
the  original.  However  this  may  be,  no  record  can  be  found  of  the 
fracture  and  its  restoration,  and  the  bust  continued  to  occupy  the 
niche  where  it  was  originally  placed  until  July,  1904,  when  it  was 
removed  to  the  State  Library,  where  the  writer  saw  it  in  the  spring 
of  1907.  For  sentimental  reasons,  if  for  none  other,  it  should  be 
returned  to  its  original  abiding-place,  where,  as  La  Fayette  wrote 
to  Washington,  “I  shall  be  eternally  by  the  side  of,  and  paying  an 
everlasting  homage  to,  the  statue  of  my  beloved  general.” 

The  conclusion  of  this  chapter  will  show  how  very  unfortunate 
Houdon’s  several  busts  of  La  Fayette  have  been  in  their  unusually 
checkered  careers.  Misfortune  seems  to  have  pursued  them,  and  it 
has  been  left  for  us,  on  this  side  of  the  water,  to  disentangle  the 
meshes  of  error  concerning  them,  which  have  been  so  tightly 
twisted  in  their  native  land,  the  home  of  both  sculptor  and  subject. 

The  life  of  the  bust  presented  to  the  city  of  Paris  was  short  and  its 
fate  tragic.  The  Revolution  followed  close  upon  the  heels  of  its 
dedication  and  the  Hotel  de  Ville  became  the  rendezvous,  in  turn, 
for  each  party,  and  the  scene  of  many  of  the  Revolution’s  most  stir- 
ring incidents.  There  the  Notables  assembled  on  the  22d  of  Feb- 
ruary, 1787,  and  there  the  States  General  gathered  together  on  the 
5th  of  May,  1789.  La  Fayette  was  a member  of  both  of  these 
bodies,  and  in  July  of  1789,  almost  in  sight  of  his  bust,  was  chosen 
General-Commander  of  the  Parisian  troops  and  Commander-in- 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  239 

Chief  of  the  National  Guard.  His  position  was  most  difficult  and 
to  both  parties  seemed  anomalous.  He  defended  the  freedom  of  the 
King  as  sincerely  and  as  openly  as  he  defended  the  freedom  of  the 
people.  His  duty  was  to  protect  the  King  and  Queen,  who  dis- 
trusted him  as  they  did  almost  every  one  who  could  serve  and  may- 
hap save  them;  and  his  fidelity  to  his  duty  made  him  equally 
distasteful  to  the  Jacobins,  and  with  their  rise  to  power  his  popular- 
ity and  influence  diminished.  His  bust  by  Houdon,  who  seems  to 
have  sided  in  a moderate  way  with  the  popular  party,  was  specially 
guarded  for  a length  of  time  by  the  Parisian  soldiers,  but  “was  at- 
tacked by  the  Jacobins  and  destroyed  at  the  period  of  their  successes 
on  the  10th  of  August.”1  This  succinct  statement,  from  the  “Me- 
moirs” of  La  Fayette,  would  be  sufficient,  were  it  not  for  the  differ- 
ent and  conflicting  stories  that  have  been  disseminated  on  the 
subject,  rendering  a discussion  of  them  necessary  and  important. 

“August  10th”  in  French  history  always  means  of  the  year  1792. 
It  is  the  most  important  date  in  the  annals  of  the  French  Revolu- 
tion. On  that  day  the  Parisian  mob  took  possession  of  the  Hotel  de 
Ville,  besieged  the  Tuileries,  and  forced  the  King  to  take  refuge  in 
the  National  Assembly,  where,  in  his  presence,  the  monarchical 
form  of  government  was  abolished  in  France.  La  Fayette’s  grow- 
ing unpopularity  had  reached  a climax,  on  account  of  his  supposed 
sympathy  with  the  King,  and  two  days  before  a deputy  had  pro- 
posed his  arrest.  Only  three  years  after  the  occurrences  of  that 

1 “Memoirs,  Correspondence  and  Manuscripts  of  La  Fayette,”  Vol.  II,  p.  7. 


240 


Life  and  Works  of 


fatal  day,  one  J.  Talma  published  in  London  a “Chronological  Ac- 
count of  the  French  Revolution,”  in  which,  under  this  ominous 
date,  is  recorded  (p.  95)  : “All  the  statues  of  Kings  were  demol- 
ished, as  well  as  those  of  La  Fayette,  Necker  and  Mirabeau.”  Not- 
withstanding this  and  other  almost  contemporaneous  similar 
statements,  Montaiglon  and  Duplessis,  in  their  “Catalogue  de 
TCEuvre  de  Houdon,”1  say: 

Lafayette  (M.  le  Marquis  de)  Buste  en  Mar.  pour  les  Etats  des  Vir- 
ginie.  Salon  de  1787,  n.  256.  Un  autre  au  Salon  1791,  n.  484.  Ce  der- 
nier, “vote  en  1791  par  la  Commune  de  Paris,”  est  sans  doute  celui  en 
Mar.  blanc,  de  la  vente  de  1828,  n.  51,  indique  comme  ayant  “eprouve, 
en  1793,  une  mutilation  qui  a ete  reparee.” — Le  Musee  de  Versailles  en 
a une  autre  en  Mar.  avec  la  meme  date  de  1791. 

The  quotations  in  the  above  extract  are  taken  from  the  Houdon 
Sale  Catalogue  of  1828, 2 where  this  important  description  of  the 
bust  is  also  given : “en  costume  de  commandant  de  la  garde  natio- 
nal de  Paris.”  But  it  would  seem  as  though  Montaiglon  and  Du- 
plessis did  not  understand  their  own  language  when  they  say,  “This 
last,”  the  bust  exhibited  in  the  Salon  of  1791,  “ Voted  in  1791  by  the 
Commune  of  Paris,’  is  without  doubt  the  one  in  white  marble  of 
the  sale  of  1828.”  The  sale  catalogue  of  1828  distinctly  says  that  its 
No.  51  is  the  one  voted  in  1791  by  the  Commune  of  Paris,  and  that 
it  was  mutilated  in  1793.  On  reading  this  we  were  at  once  im- 

1 “Revue  Universelle  des  Arts,”  1855,  Vol.  II,  p.  448. 

2 Vide  Appendix  “E.” 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  241 

pressed  with  the  idea  that,  if  the  Commune  of  Paris,  in  1791,  voted 
a bust  of  La  Fayette  to  be  placed,  as  a matter  of  course,  in  the  Hotel 
de  Ville,  where  it  held  its  sessions,  the  bust  presented  by  Virginia 
in  1786  must  have  been  destroyed  prior  to  the  vote,  and  conse- 
quently earlier  than  August  10,  1792,  as  there  would  be  no  reason 
for  two  busts  of  the  same  man  in  the  same  place  only  five  years 
apart  in  time.  This  view  was  negatived,  however,  by  M.  Pierre  de 
Nolhac,  Keeper  of  Versailles,  who  wrote:1  “Le  buste  de  La  Fay- 
ette fait  pour  I’Hotel  de  Ville  de  Paris  en  1786  a ete  certainement 
brise  en  IJQ3,  en  meme  temps  que  celui  de  Necker.”  The  year 
here  given  for  the  mutilation  of  the  La  Fayette  bust  of  1791  was 
the  same  as  that  set  forth  in  the  catalogues  of  1828  and  1855;  and, 
to  make  the  confusion  worse  confounded,  Marius  Vachon,  in  his 
elaborate  volume  on  the  Hotel  de  Ville,2  gives,  on  page  143,  an 
account  of  the  bust  of  1786  and  its  inauguration,  but  not  one  word 
as  to  its  subsequent  history  or  fate,  leaving  the  inference  that  it  was 
in  existence  at  the  period  of  the  burning,  by  the  Commune,  of  the 
Hotel  de  Ville,  May  24,  1871;  if  not  indeed  at  the  time  of  his 
writing,  a decade  later. 

As  confusing  as  these  details  and  dates  may  seem,  they  are  neces- 
sary for  a complete  understanding  of  the  situation,  when  we  come 
to  establish,  beyond  peradventure,  that  the  10th  of  August,  1792,  is 
the  true  date  of  the  destruction  of  the  bust  of  1786;  that  there  was 

1 Letter  from  Pierre  de  Nolhac  to  Mr.  Hart,  April  4,  1907. 

2 “L’Ancien  Hotel  de  Ville  de  Paris,  1533-1871.”  Paris,  1882. 


Life  and  Works  of 


242 

no  vote  of  the  Commune  of  Paris  in  1791  or  at  any  other  time  for  a 
bust  of  La  Fayette;  that  indeed  no  bust  of  him  was  made  in  that 
year  by  Houdon,  but  our  sculptor  did  make  one  of  him  in  the  pre- 
vious year. 

Fortunately  for  the  elucidation  of  this  subject,  the  acts  of  the 
Commune  of  Paris  during  the  Revolution  are  now  in  course  of 
publication  in  Paris,  under  the  erudite  editorship  of  M.  Sigismond 
Lacroix,1  twelve  volumes  of  which  have  appeared,  bringing  the 
work  down  to  the  close  of  July,  1791.  These  volumes  I searched 
diligently  for  any  reference  to  a bust  of  La  Fayette  “voted  in  1791 
by  the  Commune  of  Paris,”  but  there  was  nothing  of  the  kind  re- 
corded in  the  first  seven  months  of  the  year.  I did,  however,  find 
an  interesting  reference  to  the  bust  presented  in  1786.  It  was  under 
date  of  April  8,  1790, 2 when  the  question  arose  as  to  the  installation 
of  Houdon’s  bust  of  Bailly,  Mayor  of  Paris,  in  the  Hotel  de  Ville. 
The  President  of  the  Assembly,  l’Abbe  Bertolio,  said: 

“We  have  possessed  for  several  years  past  the  bust  of  Marquis  de 
la  Fayette.  It  was  presented  to  us  by  men  who  were  in  a position  to 
appreciate  his  merit;  it  seems  to  me  that,  when  the  free  Americans 
offered  it  to  the  nation  by  offering  it  to  the  Capitol,  they  were  say- 
ing to  us,  with  that  prescience  inspired  by  a love  of  liberty,  ‘He  will 
soon  accomplish  for  you  what  he  has  done  for  us.’  . . . You  offer 

1 “Actes  de  la  Commune  de  Paris  pendant  la  Revolution.  Publies  et  Annotes  par 
Sigismond  Lacroix.  Paris,  1894-1907.” 

2 Ibid.,  First  Series,  Vol.  IV,  p.  640. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  243 

us  to-day  the  bust  of  M.  Bailly.  . . . It  shall  be  placed  beneath  the 
bust  of  the  most  cherished  of  Kings,  facing  the  one  of  Marquis  de 
la  Fayette.” 

In  a foot-note  to  page  454  of  Vol.  Ill,  Second  Series,  under  date 
of  April  10,  1791,  I found  another  reference  to  the  La  Fayette  bust 
of  1786,  and  its  location  in  the  Hotel  de  Ville,  but  no  mention 
whatever  of  its  subsequent  history  and  fate. 

Not  satisfied  with  ending  my  research  with  the  close  of  July, 
1791,  in  the  printed  volumes,  I addressed  a letter  of  inquiry  to  M. 
Lacroix,  the  editor,  telling  him  how  assiduously  I had  studied  the 
“Actes”  of  the  Commune,  as  far  as  published,  in  my  endeavor  to 
find  the  vote  of  the  Commune  of  Paris,  of  1791,  for  the  bust  of  La 
Fayette,  as  stated  by  Montaiglon  and  Duplessis,  following  the 
Houdon  sale  catalogue  of  1828,  and  asking  him  if  he  could  give  me 
this  vote  of  1791  from  the  unpublished  “Actes,”  as  well  as  the  rea- 
son given  for  ordering  a second  bust  of  La  Fayette  for  the  Hotel  de 
Ville,  if  the  one  presented  by  Virginia  in  1786  was  still  there  at  the 
time  named. 

In  reply,  I received  from  M.  Lacroix  not  only  a prompt  and  most 
charmingly  courteous  answer,  but  the  exact  information  to  settle  the 
question  for  all  time.  He  wrote: 

I can  assure  you  positively  that  the  Commune  of  Paris  never  voted  for 
a bust  of  La  Fayette,  either  in  1791  or  before  or  after.  What  the  Com- 
mune did  vote  for,  as  you  will  see  in  the  text  accompanying  this,  was  a 


244 


Life  and  Works  of 


medal  and  a statue  of  Washington.  There  is  certainly  error  in  what 
concerns  the  bust  of  iJQi.  It  was  not  voted  by  the  Commune  of  Paris . 

The  text  to  which  he  refers  is  composed  of  extracts  from  the 
manuscript  proces-verbal  of  the  Commune,  from  which  the  follow- 
ing gleanings  are  made.  On  October  13,  1791,  the  General  Coun- 
cil having  considered  the  resignation  handed  in  by  La  Fayette,  of 
his  command,  “suppressed  by  a late  law,”  and  discussed  the  form  in 
which  the  Commune  should  show  its  recognition  of  his  services,  it 
was  resolved : 

“First.  There  shall  be  struck  a medal  in  memory  of  the  services 
rendered  the  Commune  of  Paris  by  M.  La  Fayette. 

“Second.  The  Academy  of  Inscriptions  and  Belles  Lettres  shall 
be  consulted  as  to  the  form  and  legend  to  be  adopted  for  the  said 
medal ; the  legend  shall  be  in  the  French  language. 

“Third.  The  medal  to  be  presented  to  M.  La  Fayette  shall  be  of 
gold;  all  the  others  shall  be  of  bronze;  and  the  members  of  the 
General  Council  undertake  individually  to  bear  the  expense  of  the 
medal  each  shall  receive. 

“ Fourth . The  statue  of  George  Washington,  executed  by  M. 
Houdon,  shall  be  given  by  the  Commune  to  M.  La  Fayette. 

“Fifth.  The  resolutions  of  the  General  Council,  after  having 
been  approved  by  the  Mayor,  the  first  Assistant  of  the  Coun- 
cil of  the  Commune  and  the  first  Assistant  of  the  Secretary, 
shall  be  engraved  on  the  marble,  underneath  the  bust  of  M.  la 
Fayette.” 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  245 

The  inscription  was  drawn  up  finally  on  the  15th  of  November, 
1791,  and  concludes  its  extraordinary  length  and  construction  with: 
“The  Commune,  in  appreciation,  has  ordered  that  a medal  be 
struck  in  honor  of  M.  La  Fayette ; that  the  statue  of  General  Wash- 
ington, his  pattern  and  his  friend,  shall  be  offered  him  as  a gift  and 
conveyed  to  one  of  his  residences,  according  to  his  choice;  that  the 
present  orders  shall  be  engraved  on  the  marble  and  placed  under 
his  bust,  given  to  the  city  of  Paris  by  the  United  States  of  America, 
and  placed  in  the  Communal  House.” 

As  to  the  statue  of  Washington,  intended  to  be  presented  to  La 
Fayette,  the  proces-verbal  for  November  17,  1791,  contains  this: 
“The  Administrators  of  the  Department  of  Public  Works  are  again 
charged  to  present  immediately  a report  on  the  statue  of  General 
Washington,  which  the  General  Council  ordered  to  be  acquired 
from  M.  Houdon.”  The  remainder  of  the  minutes  not  having  sur- 
vived, it  is  not  known  what  befell  this  proposition;  but  the  fact  is 
made  perfectly  clear  that  there  was  no  vote  of  the  Commune  of 
Paris  in  1791,  or  at  any  other  time,  ordering  a bust  of  La  Fayette 
for  the  Hotel  de  Ville,  as  positively  stated  by  Montaiglon  and  Du- 
plessis. 

We  now  come  to  the  important  question  of  when  was  the  bust  of 
La  Fayette  destroyed,  that  had  been  presented  to  the  city  of  Paris 
by  the  State  of  Virginia  and  placed  in  the  Hotel  de  Ville  on  the 
28th  of  September,  1786.  M.  Lacroix  writes: 

“In  the  Troces-Verbaux  de  la  Commune  de  Paris,  du  10  aout 


Life  and  Works  of 


246 

1792  au  ier  juin  1793,’  published  by  M.  Tourneux,  is  to  be  found  on 
page  6 : 

“ ‘Assembly  of  the  Commissioners  from  the  Forty-eight  Sections, 
10  August,  1792. 

“ ‘A  member  makes  a motion  to  pull  down  the  busts  of  Bailly,  La 
Fayette,  Necker,  Louis  XVI,  all  these  Charlatans  of  Patriotism, 
whose  presence  wounds  the  eyes  of  good  citizens. 

“ ‘Some  one  remarks  that  workmen  are  expected  for  this  labor. 

“ ‘But  the  impatience  of  the  patriots  will  not  suffer  this  delay. 
Forty  arms  are  raised  at  once  to  throw  to  the  ground  these  false 
idols;  they  fall  and  are  reduced  to  powder,  amid  the  thunderous 
applause  of  the  Tribunes.’ 

Here  is  the  official  seal  to  the  fate  of  four  important  works  by 
Houdon,  for,  strange  to  say,  each  one  of  the  four  busts  thus  ground 
to  powder  on  the  10th  of  August,  1792,  was  the  work  of  his  chisel, 
as  will  be  detailed  in  a subsequent  chapter. 

The  error  of  Montaiglon  and  Duplessis  in  regard  to  Houdon’s 
bust  of  La  Fayette  does  not  end  with  the  statement  we  have  been 
discussing.  The  closing  sentence  of  the  extract  we  have  given, 
from  their  catalogue  of  1855,  is  equally  erroneous.  They  say,  “The 
Museum  of  Versailles  has  another  [bust  of  La  Fayette]  in  marble 
with  the  same  date  of  17QI.”  The  marble  bust  of  La  Fayette  in 
the  Museum  of  Versailles,  with  powdered  hair  and  wearing  the 

1 “See  also  Barriere  et  Berville’s  ‘Memoires  sur  les  journees  de  Septembre  1792/ 
1820-1826,  and  Buchez  et  Roux’s  ‘Histoire  parlementaire  de  la  Revolution  frangaise,’ 
Tome  XVI,  1835."  S.  L. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  247 

uniform  of  the  Commander  of  the  National  Guard,  is  signed  by 
Houdon  and  dated  “1790.”  It  is  the  one  that  was  exhibited  in  the 
Salon  of  1791,  and  whether  or  not  it  sustained  a mutilation  in  1793, 
it  has  at  some  time  suffered  an  injury  precisely  similar  to  that  sus- 
tained by  the  bust  of  1786,  belonging  to  the  State  of  Virginia,  and 
has  been  restored  in  a precisely  similar  manner,  which,  to  say  the 
least,  is  a curious  coincidence. 


CHAPTER  XII 

1789 

BUSTS  OF  JEFFERSON— NECKER— LOUIS  XVI-BAILLY 

E have  seen  in  the  histories  of  the  busts  of  La  Fayette  and 
of  the  statue  of  Washington,  the  very  close  relations  that 
necessarily  existed  between  the  sculptor  and  Jefferson, 
the  American  envoy  in  Paris,  so  that  it  would  be  most  surprising  if 
Houdon  had  not  left  us  a portrayal  of  the  author  of  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  especially  as  Jefferson  took  an  intelligent  interest 
in  art,  was  an  accomplished  connoisseur  and  an  amateur  of  no  mean 
ability  in  the  difficult  field  of  architecture,  as  shown  by  the  Uni- 
versity of  Virginia,  which  he  designed  and  which  would  do  no  dis- 
credit to  a professional  architect  of  recognized  ability.  As  I said 
on  another  occasion,1  “Jefferson  showed  himself  to  be  a man  of 
excellent  aesthetic  taste  and  with  an  actual  knowledge  of  art  far 
beyond  the  general  cultivation  of  his  time.  His  correspondence 
teems  with  suggestions  and  reflections  on  design  and  decoration, 
showing  an  understanding  of  the  subject,  and  not  merely  idle 
thoughts  bestowed  upon  an  ephemeral  fad.”  Therefore  we  can 
understand  that  Houdon  would  not  make  any  perfunctory  bust  of 

1 “Life  Portraits  of  Thomas  Jefferson,”  McClure’s  Magazine  for  May,  1898. 

248 


TMECO^HAS 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  249 

such  a man,  and  he  did  not.  He  took  a mask  of  Jefferson’s  face,1 
and  to  the  Salon  of  1789  sent  his  bust  in  plaster,  where  it  masquer- 
aded in  the  catalogue  as  “M.  Sesseron,  envoye  des  fitats  de  la  Vir- 
ginie.”  Subsequently,  Houdon  chiseled  it  in  marble,  for  which 
Jefferson  paid  him,  July  3,  1789,  one  thousand  francs.  Unfortu- 
nately, this  original  marble  was  destroyed  by  the  carelessness  of 
workmen  at  Monticello,  during  Jefferson’s  lifetime,  but  there  are 
two  signed  plaster  casts  of  it,  one  belonging  to  the  New  York  His- 
torical Society  and  the  other  in  the  hall  of  the  American  Philo- 
sophical Society  in  Philadelphia.  The  former  was  given  by 
Jefferson  to  Dr.  Hugh  Williamson,  and  the  latter  by  him  to  David 
Rittenhouse.  Its  characterization  is  very  fine,  and  although  de- 
cidedly French  in  its  spirit,  it  gives  an  aspect  of  Jefferson  that  is 
perfectly  natural. 

The  marble  bust  of  La  Fayette  by  Houdon  that  Jefferson,  acting 
for  his  native  State,  had  placed  in  the  Hotel  de  Ville,  was  not  alone 
in  its  honor  and  its  discomfiture.  With  it  were  erected  and  then 
tumbled  down,  busts  of  the  King  and  of  his  great  Minister  of 
Finance,  Necker,  as  well  as  of  the  past  Mayor  of  Paris,  Bailly. 
The  downfall  of  these  works  has  been  already  mentioned,  but  their 
genesis  remains  to  be  told. 

Jacques  Necker,  the  brother  of  Madame  de  Stael,  and  the  great 
Finance  Minister  of  France,  was  not  French  but  Swiss.  Going  to 

1 “Browere’s  Life-Masks  of  Great  Americans,”  by  Charles  Henry  Hart,  New  York, 
1899,  p.  41. 


250 


Life  and  Works  of 


Paris  as  a mere  youth,  he  accumulated  an  immense  fortune  during 
the  Seven  Years’  War,  so  that  he  retired  from  business  at  the  early 
age  of  thirty-two.  In  1779  he  was  appointed  Director-General  of 
Finances  of  France,  with  immediate  and  brilliant  results,  but 
jealousy  among  the  courtiers  caused  his  dismissal  after  four  years’ 
service.  The  administrations  of  his  successors,  however,  resulted 
in  a financial  crisis  for  France,  so  that  he  was  recalled  in  August, 

1788,  as  Comptroller-General  and  Minister  of  State.  His  popu- 
larity was  immense,  and  when  the  King  dismissed  him  on  July  11, 

1789,  Paris  arose  in  insurrection  and  he  was  recalled  to  his  offices 
in  triumph,  after  an  absence  of  eighteen  days.  On  July  30,  he  ap- 
peared at  the  National  Assembly,  and  as  he  was  about  to  leave,  it 
was  proposed  to  raise  a statue  to  him  in  the  Hotel  de  Ville.  This 
he  begged  they  would  not  do,  assuring  the  members  that  the  wish 
they  had  thus  expressed  was  more  than  sufficient  to  complete  his 
happiness ; but  the  Assembly,  notwithstanding,  ordered  that  his  bust 
should  be  placed  there.1  Before  separating,  they  also  voted  to  have 
executed  a bust  of  M.  Bailly. 

The  subject  seems  to  have  rested  until  the  following  September, 
when,  on  the  7th,2  a deputation  from  the  district  of  Philippe  du 
Roule  recalled  to  the  Assembly  its  vote  of  July  30  and  submitted 
that  the  district  possessed  a distinguished  artist,  M.  Houdon,  whose 
hand  already  had  preserved  for  posterity  the  features  of  General 
Washington  and  M.  le  Marquis  de  la  Fayette,  and  unanimously 

1 “Actes,”  etc.,  Vol.  I,  p.  52.  2 Ibid.,  Vol.  I,  p.  497. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  251 

requested  that  they  should  grant  to  M.  Houdon,  “the  honor  of 
making  also  the  bust  of  a minister  so  dear  to  France.”  Whereupon 
the  Assembly,  having  considered  the  recommendation,  as  “also  the 
monuments  which  have  already  distinguished  the  chisel  of  M. 
Houdon,”  thought  that  it  might  with  confidence  charge  him  with  a 
work  “which  will  procure  for  him  a new  and  precious  occasion  of 
developing  his  talents.”  The  following  day  there  was  presented  to 
the  Assembly  this  letter  from  Houdon  i1 

You  have  added  to  all  that  you  have  done  for  the  happiness  and  glory 
of  the  country  in  rewarding  a Minister  who  has  deserved  most  of 
France;  you  have  ordered  that  his  bust  shall  be  placed  in  the  same 
spot  where,  night  and  day,  you  ceaselessly  occupy  yourselves  with  the 
happiness  of  your  fellow-citizens.  Permit  an  artist  full  of  affection  and 
recognition  of  your  patriotic  virtues  to  reclaim  from  your  goodness  the 
honor  of  making  the  bust  of  M.  Necker.  The  Sieur  Houdon  has  al- 
ready made  that  of  Washington  and  that  of  La  Fayette,  apostle  and 
defender  of  the  liberty  of  two  worlds.  Gratify  the  ambition  of  the  Sieur 
Houdon.  He  only  asks  a block  of  marble;  he  will  deem  himself  too 
much  honored  if  you  order  him  to  consecrate  his  feeble  talent  to  the 
honoring  of  a great  man  and  to  those  who  have  discharged  a public  duty, 
in  decreeing  to  M.  Necker  a distinction  that  no  other  minister  before 
him  had  obtained  from  the  city  of  Paris. 


Houdon’s  proposition  to  make  the  bust  of  Necker  gratuitously, 
only  asking  that  he  should  be  furnished  with  the  block  of  marble 
for  the  purpose,  was  unanimously  accepted,  and  the  next  day  he  ap- 

1 “Actes,”  etc.,  Vol.  I,  p.  504. 


Life  and  Works  of 


252 

peared  before  the  Assembly,  in  person,  and  presented  his  thanks 
for  the  acceptance  of  his  offer.  Houdon  lost  no  time  in  accomplish- 
ing the  work,  emphasizing  again  his  remarkable  facility  and  quick- 
ness of  execution,  for  on  December  30  he  advises  the  Assembly  that 
the  bust  is  ready  for  installation,  he  having  hastened  to  finish  it  in 
order  that  those  representatives,  who  had  ordered  it,  should  see  it 
placed  during  their  administration,  as  the  elections  were  coming  on 
which  might  make  changes  in  the  body.  The  Assembly  left  it  to 
Houdon  to  name  the  day  and  hour  when  it  would  suit  him  “to 
place  the  bust  of  M.  Necker  on  the  support  intended  for  it  in  the 
Hotel  de  ¥1116.” 1 On  January  21,  1790,  the  Assembly  voted,2 

That,  in  acknowledgment  of  the  zeal  and  disinterestedness  of  M. 
Houdon,  in  relation  to  the  bust  in  marble  of  M.  Necker,  of  which  he 
was  so  good  as  to  make  a present  to  the  Commune  of  Paris,  a deputa- 
tion should  be  appointed  to  transmit  to  him  the  exact  sentiments  of  the 
Assembly  and  to  hand  him  a medal  relative  to  his  masterpiece  which 
shall  preserve,  to  posterity,  the  proof  of  his  civic  virtue  and  patriotism. 

This  bust  of  Necker  was  immediately  reproduced  at  the  royal 
factory  at  Sevres  in  small  size,  and  in  March,  1790,  one  was  sent  by 
the  Comte  d’Estaing  to  General  Washington  and  occupied  a place 
in  the  library  at  Mount  Vernon.  It  is  now  in  the  cabinet  of  the 
Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania. 

No  sooner  was  this  incident  closed  than  the  King  made  his  fa- 
mous speech  of  February  4th,  which  so  enthused  the  Assembly  that 
it  ordered  the  speech  to  be  engraved  on  a tablet  of  brass  and  placed 

1 “Actes,”  etc.,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  383.  2 Ibid.,  p.  501. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  253 

in  the  Sessions  Chamber,  when  Houdon  again  came  to  the  fore  with 
an  offer  to  make  this  monument,  submitting  at  the  same  time  a 
sketch  of  a book  of  marble  entitled  “The  Constitution,”  upon  the 
open  leaves  of  which  should  be  cut  the  speech  of  the  King  to  the 
National  Assembly.1  Houdon  was  not  alone  in  generosity.  M. 
Girardot  de  Marigny  wished  to  pay  the  expense  of  the  monument, 
offering  10,000  francs  for  the  purpose.  But  the  Assembly  would 
none  of  it,  feeling  that  accepting  any  offer  would  lessen  the  force 
and  dignity  of  their  action,  and  determined  that  the  brass  tablet 
“should  be  made  at  the  cost  alone  of  the  representatives  of  the  Com- 
mune.” The  King,  to  show  his  appreciation  of  the  vote  of  the  As- 
sembly, advised  that  body  on  February  16,  by  the  hand  of  his 
minister,  the  Comte  de  Saint  Priest,2  that,  agreeably  to  its  expressed 
wishes,  he  had  ordered  Houdon  to  make  his  bust  for  presentation 
to  the  Commune,  which  was  accepted  and  a deputation  of  twenty- 
four  of  its  members  were  selected  to  convey  its  thanks  to  the  King. 
This  bust  was  a replica  of  that  exhibited  at  the  Salon  of  1787,  and 
was  installed  in  the  Hotel  de  Ville  on  the  23d  of  March,  1790, 
without  any  ceremony,  as  was  the  bust  of  Necker.  Of  the  one  at 
Versailles,  which  is  of  the  same  year— 1790— as  this  one,  Geffroy3 
says,  “The  King!  Houdon  transfigures  him  with  a touch  of  his 
chisel.  He  is  a Roman  in  his  toga  mounting  to  the  Capitol,  and  not 
a great  woolly  sheep  going  to  the  slaughter-house.” 

1 “Actes,”  etc.,  Vol.  IV,  p.  44.  2 Ibid.,  p.  127. 

3 “Les  Chefs  d’CEuvre  de  Versailles,”  par  Gustave  Geffroy,  p.  77. 


254  Jean  Antoine  Houdon 

To  Houdon  also  was  confided  the  execution  of  the  bust  of  Bailly, 
that  had  been  voted  on  the  same  day  as  was  voted  the  bust  of 
Necker;  and  on  April  8,  1790,  a lively  discussion  arose,  in  the  As- 
sembly, as  to  the  mode  of  the  reception  of  this  bust,  some  members 
desiring  a formal  presentation,  while  others  argued  that,  as  there 
had  been  no  particular  ceremony  attending  the  reception  of  the  bust 
of  Necker,  or  even  the  King’s  bust,  that  of  the  Mayor  should  not  be 
attended  with  more  pomp.1  Finally,  it  was  brought  in  and  placed 
on  the  table  of  the  Secretaries,  when,  however,  the  President  of  the 
Assembly,  l’Abbe  Bertolio,  made  the  remarks  already  quoted  in  the 
chapter  on  the  bust  of  La  Fayette.  In  the  Municipal  Journal  of 
the  Department  of  Paris  for  April  10,  1791,  one  may  read : “In  the 
large  room  of  the  Hotel  de  Ville,  one  sees  alongside  of  the  bust  of 
Louis  XVI,  regenerator  of  French  liberty,  those  of  the  three  men 
who  had  the  greatest  influence  on  the  French  Revolution,  MM. 
Necker,  de  la  Fayette  and  Bailly.” 

As  we  have  already  seen,  in  little  more  than  a year  these  four 
busts  were  tumbled  from  their  pedestals  and  ground  to  dust  by 
some  of  the  same  fanatics  who  had  been  instrumental  in  placing 
them  there,  and  thus  four  of  Houdon’s  important  works  were  ruth- 
lessly destroyed. 

1 “Actes,”  etc.,  Vol.  IV,  p.  636. 


CHAPTER  XIII 

1791-1814 

ESCAPES  THE  GUILLOTINE-BUSTS  OF  ROBERT  FULTON  AND  OF 
JOEL  BARLOW;  OF  NAPOLEON  AND  OF  JOSEPHINE 

HE  Salon  of  1791  differed  essentially  from  former  Sa- 
lons. Up  to  this  time  the  right  of  exhibition  in  the 
palace  of  the  Louvre  had  been  entirely  restricted  to 
members  of  the  Academie  des  Beaux  Arts,  but,  with  the  leveling 
tendencies  of  the  day,  the  National  Assembly  on  the  21st  of  August, 
1791,  suppressed  this  last  privilege  and  opened  its  doors  to  “ple- 
beian art.”  The  Salons  always  opened  on  August  25th  at  this  pe- 
riod, and  lasted  one  month,  as  at  present,  so  the  decree  was  passed 
with  an  evident  view  of  affecting  the  impending  exhibition. 

At  this  Salon,  Houdon  exhibited  a repetition,  in  bronze,  of  his 
“Frileuse,”  literally  the  “Shivering  Female,”  but  typifying  “Win- 
ter,” the  original  marble  having  been  made  as  far  back  as  1783,  and 
then  exhibited  in  his  studio.  In  1828  it  was  presented  to  the  Mont- 
pellier Museum,  where  it  is  to  be  found  at  the  present  day,  with  a 
companion,  “Summer,”  executed  in  1785.  A composition  of  two 
heads,  “Love  and  Friendship,”  also  known  under  the  name  of  “The 
Kiss,”  was  exhibited,  but  its  material  is  not  indicated.  From  the 
number  of  repetitions  in  varying  materials  made  of  this  last-named 


255 


Life  and  Works  of 


256 

piece,  it  must  possess  some  charming  qualities.  One  of  these  repeti- 
tions is  in  the  Museum  of  Decorative  Arts  in  Paris. 

In  the  way  of  portrait-busts,  we  have  Bailly,  President  of  Jeu  de 
Paume;  Necker,  the  celebrated  financier;  and,  finally,  Mirabeau. 
A bust  of  La  Fayette  and  also  repetitions  of  Voltaire  and  of  Frank- 
lin were  in  the  collection,  and  mention  is  made  of  a female  bust  and 
some  heads  of  children.  This  seems  to  indicate  considerable  ac- 
tivity for  an  artist  now  past  his  fiftieth  year,  and  who  had  spent 
thirty  of  them  in  the  most  tireless  and  incessant  industry.  And  the 
mention  of  “a  female  bust  and  some  heads  of  children,”  as  well  as 
emphasizing  his  activity,  means  much  more  than  the  mere  words 
would  indicate,  for  there  is  little  doubt  that  the  reference  is  to  the 
busts  he  modeled  of  his  charming  wife  and  at  least  two  of  his  very 
attractive  children.  As  we  shall  see  in  the  next  chapter,  Houdon 
married  in  1786  and  had  three  daughters,  named  respectively  Sa- 
bine, Anne-Ange  and  Claudine.  It  was  not  publicly  known,  how- 
ever, until  half  a dozen  years  ago,  when  they  were  acquired  from 
the  family,  for  the  Salle  Houdon,  in  the  Louvre,  that  Houdon  had 
made  busts  of  his  wife  and  of  his  two  oldest  daughters,  and  only  in 
May  of  1 91 1,  when  the  collection  of  art  objects  belonging  to  Pierre 
Decourcelle  was  offered  for  sale,  in  Paris,  did  it  come  to  light  that 
later  he  had  added  that  of  his  youngest  daughter,  the  infant  Clau- 
dine. Had  Houdon  not  made  his  wonderful  Voltaire  and  his 
beautiful  Diana,  his  realistic  Gluck  and  his  ideal  Moliere,  his  posi- 
tion in  his  art  would  have  been  assured  by  those  four  works  of  love 


IM  AID)  AML  IE  3HI (CDHIID)  (OI^T 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  257 

of  the  members  of  his  close  family  circle.  Description  is  unneces- 
sary, as  we  are  fortunate  enough  to  have  reproductions  of  those 
in  the  Louvre— of  Mme.  Houdon  and  of  Sabine  and  of  Anne- 
Ange— but  unfortunately  the  little  Claudine  became  known  too 
late  to  be  secured  for  our  purpose.  That  she  was  artistically  a 
worthy  companion  of  the  others,  if  not  their  superior,  is  shown  by 
the  appreciation  shown  her  at  the  sale,  where  she  brought  48,000 
francs,  while  her  older  sisters  brought  respectively  20,200  and 
20,000  francs  each. 

The  period  of  the  Revolution  is  now  upon  us.  The  Reign  of 
Terror  came  very  near  being  fatal  to  Houdon,  and  considering  the 
bloodthirsty  passions  of  the  chief  actors  in  it  and  how  quickly  pun- 
ishment followed  on  the  steps  of  accusation,  we  almost  tremble  for 
our  artist  as  we  read  the  account  of  his  escape.  As  an  ancient  acad- 
emician and  former  member  of  a privileged  body,  and  so  connected 
in  that  way  with  the  old  order  of  things,  he  was  already  under  sus- 
picion. A graphic  contemporary  account1  is  before  us,  reciting  the 
incident  of  his  being  accused  and  his  escape,  and  we  cannot  do 
better  than  transcribe  from  it: 

“ . . . The  nightly  arrests,  the  menace  of  the  guillotine,  were 
also  the  orders  of  the  day  against  the  artists  of  the  Louvre  by  the 
Terrorist  government.  Houdon  was  one  of  them,  and  the  patriot- 
ism of  this  quiet,  blameless,  and  honest  man  was  suspected.  It  was 

1 “Fragments  sur  Paris,  par  Meyer,”  Vol.  II,  pp.  223  and  227.  Cited  by  Montaiglon 
and  Duplessis,  p.  345. 


Life  and  Works  of 


258 

imputed  to  him  as  a crime  that  he  had  not  offered  any  patriotic 
work;  this  showed  his  anti-Revolutionary  spirit.  He  was  threat- 
ened with  incarceration,  and  the  great  number  of  busts  and  statues 
coming  from  his  hands,  which,  like  Rousseau  and  Voltaire,  repre- 
sented the  torches  of  philosophy,  would  not  have  saved  him,  for 
those  characters,  too,  had  died  in  the  bosom  of  aristocracy.” 

He  was  saved  by  the  presence  of  mind  and  resolution  of  his  noble 
wife.  Houdon  had  finished  the  statue  in  marble  of  Saint  Scholas- 
tique,  which  had  been  ordered,  some  years  previously,  by  a convent 
in  Paris.  This  saint  was  represented  very  simply,  without  mystical 
attributes,  with  an  open  book  in  his  hand,  as  might  be  a statue  of 
Philosophy.  Mme.  Houdon  made  use  of  this  circumstance.  She 
knew  that  her  husband  had  been  threatened;  so  she  presented  her- 
self before  the  Committee  of  Public  Safety,  under  whose  iron  rule 
the  whole  community  bent.  Barere,  whom  she  found  there,  at  once 
charged  her  husband  with  being  a poor  republican,  for  not  having 
as  yet  executed  any  patriotic  work.  “Houdon,”  she  tranquilly  re- 
plied, “has  made  a statue  of  Philosophy.  Come  and  see  it  in  his 
studio.  Philosophy  paved  the  way  for  the  Revolution ; it  claims  its 
place  beside  Liberty  in  the  Temple  of  Justice.”  Barere  was  favor- 
ably impressed.  “That  is  a fine  idea,”  he  said;  “I  approve  your 
suggestion,  and  I will  communicate  it  to  the  Committee.”  He 
warmly  advocated  the  proposition,  and  as  a result  the  statue  of  the 
heretofore  saint  was  carried  off  from  Houdon’s  studio  and  placed 
in  the  outer  hallway  of  the  Convention,  and  Houdon  was  saved. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  259 

There  can  be  no  doubt  about  the  occurrence;  for,  like  the  dis- 
ciples’ evidence  in  the  Scriptures,  we  have  the  same  account  vari- 
ously given.  Barere  himself  afterward  relates,  in  notes  that  were 
published:  “I  knew  that  Houdon,  a famous  sculptor,  had  no  work, 
that  his  fortunes  and  his  studio  were  languishing.  I went  to  see  his 
works.  I found  among  those  that  the  Revolution  did  not  allow  of 
his  finishing  a beautiful  statue  in  Italian  marble  of  Saint  Eus- 
tache.1  It  was  intended  for  a lateral  chapel  of  the  Church  of  the 
Invalides.  ‘Finish  that  statue,’  I said  to  him,  ‘attach  to  it  some 
attributes  identifying  it  with  Liberty;  and  the  Committee  will  pay 
you  for  it  at  once,  in  order  to  place  it  in  the  entrance  chamber  of 
the  Convention  Hall.’  Houdon  laughed  at  my  project;  neverthe- 
less, he  executed  it,  was  paid,  and  had  the  statue  placed  in  the  cham- 
ber indicated,  which  is  called  the  Chamber  of  Liberty.  Houdon  is 
living;  he  can  certify  to  the  fact.”2 

Barere  is  silent  as  to  the  danger  Houdon  ran  and  as  to  his  aiding 
him.  This  is  no  reason  for  doubting  the  fact.  There  were  mem- 
ories connected  with  the  Committee  of  Public  Safety  that  it  might 
be  well  not  to  revive,  which  sufficiently  explains  his  silence.  Hou- 
don’s  family  always  retained  a lively  sense  of  obligation  to  Barere. 
“If  M.  Houdon  did  not  become  a victim,  in  those  fatal  days,  it  was 
owing  entirely  to  the  Conventionnel  Barere,  who,  always  faithful 

1 Elsewhere,  in  a short  enumeration  of  Houdon’s  works,  these  same  “Memoires”  of 
Barere,  Paris,  1842,  Vol.  IV,  p.  247,  call  it  by  its  true  name,  “Saint  Scholastica,  intended 
for  the  Church  of  the  Invalides,  and  which  was  transformed  in  1793  into  a statue  of 
Philosophy.”  2 “Memoires  de  Barere,”  Vol.  II,  p.  143. 


26o 


Life  and  Works  of 


to  the  cause  of  the  Fine  Arts,  defended  him  with  energy  against 
perfidious  accusations.”  So  writes  Raoul  Rochette,  Houdon’s  son- 
in-law,  in  his  notice  of  the  artist  introductory  to  the  catalogue  of 
Houdon’s  sale. 

It  seems  to  be  thought  highly  probable  that  David,  the  painter, 
was  the  author  and  instigator  of  the  accusations  against  Houdon. 
If  so,  time  brought  its  revenge,  for  when  David  was  imprisoned 
and  pursued  by  the  commissioners  of  the  Section  of  the  Museum, 
Mme.  Houdon  submitted  some  damaging  testimony  against  him 
which  he  was  at  considerable  pains  to  refute.  Eventually,  in  1815, 
he  was  banished  from  France,  and  died  in  Belgium. 

At  the  Salon  of  the  year  1 (August,  1793),1  Houdon  exhibited  a 
reduction  of  his  “Vestal  Virgin,”  the  original  in  bronze  having 
been  exhibited  at  the  Salon  of  1777,  and  a “Petite  Frileuse” ; as  also 
a small  model,  a foot  high,  of  an  equestrian  statue  of  Washington. 
It  seems  really  amazing  that  any  Salon  at  all  was  held  at  this  time. 

To  the  next  Salon,  in  1795,  he  sent  but  one  bust.  This  was  the 
portrait  of  the  Abbe  Barthelemy,  author  of  the  celebrated  “Voyage 
du  jeune  Anacharsis,”  a book  of  immense  learning  which  it  took  its 
author  thirty  years  to  complete.  His  fame  came  late  in  life,  for  the 
book  did  not  appear  until  1788,  when  the  Abbe  was  in  his  seventy- 
third  year.  He  was  the  style  of  model  Houdon  particularly  ex- 

1 The  calendar  of  the  French  Revolution  began,  by  decree  of  the  National  Convention 
of  November  24,  1793,  on  the  autumnal  equinox,  September  22,  1792,  the  midnight  of 
the  date  of  its  first  meeting,  and  was  composed  of  twelve  months.  It  ceased  by  order 
of  Napoleon  on  September  9,  1805,  so  that  its  life  was  the  unlucky  thirteen  years. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  261 

celled  in  delineating,  and  he  appears  to  have  exhibited  his  talent 
again  at  its  best.  Nivernois,  the  biographer  of  Barthelemy,  speak- 
ing of  the  Abbe  and  Houdon’s  bust  of  him,  writes:  “His  face  had 
an  antique  cast,  and  his  bust  may  happily  be  placed  only  between 
those  of  Plato  and  Aristotle.  It  is  the  work  of  a skilled  hand  (M. 
Houdon),  who  has  divined  how  to  illustrate  in  his  countenance  that 
mixture  of  gentleness,  simplicity,  amiability  and  dignity  which 
made  transparent,  so  to  speak,  the  soul  of  this  unusual  man.” 

The  year  1795  marks  two  events  in  Houdon’s  life,— the  loss  of  a 
younger  sister,  Madeleine  Pelagie  Houdon,  and  his  enforced  re- 
moval from  the  workshops  he  had  occupied  in  a wing  of  the  Mu- 
nicipal Library.  This  necessitated  a sale  of  some  of  his  collected 
works.  The  auction  took  place  on  the  8th  of  October,  and  a list  of 
the  objects  disposed  of  includes,  besides  a number  of  paintings, 
some  dozen  works  of  his  own.  The  busts  are  of  Paul  Jones,  Buffon, 
Franklin,  Voltaire  and  Mirabeau.  His  vexation  and  preoccupa- 
tion, owing  to  this  last  disturbance,  doubtless  account  for  his 
meagre  contribution  to  the  Salon  of  1796.  We  find  but  a terra- 
cotta bust  of  M.  Pastoret  and  a marble  of  his  statue  “La  Frileuse.” 
The  agitations  and  uncertainties  of  the  period  had  frozen  the  cur- 
rent of  his  genius  and  limited  the  exercise  of  his  talent,  so  that  his 
name  does  not  appear  at  all  as  an  exhibitor  in  the  Salons  of  1798 
and  1799.  We  are  not  to  see  any  revival  in  him  until  the  Consular 
period,  when  to  the  Salons  of  1800  and  1801  he  contributed  several 
busts,  but  unfortunately  names  are  not  given  in  the  catalogue.  In 


262 


Life  and  Works  of 


the  latter  year  he  made  a heroic  bust  of  Mirabeau  for  the  Gallery 
of  the  Consuls,  and  the  next  year  a similar  one  of  Washington  for 
the  same  place.  These  two  busts  are  now  in  the  Museum  at  Ver- 
sailles. In  1802  he  had  five,  including  marbles  of  d’Alembert  and 
of  Barthelemy,  which  were  of  course  repetitions  of  earlier  orig- 
inals. Mme.  Rode  and  the  well-known  Margravine  of  Anspach 
were  also  among  his  contributions.  In  1804  Houdon  again  exhib- 
ited portraits,  including  busts  of  Marshal  Ney,  Joel  Barlow,  later 
American  Minister  to  France,  and  Robert  Fulton,  the  perfecter  of 
the  steamboat  for  practical  navigation.  The  latter  began  life  as  a 
miniature-painter,  a fact  as  generally  forgotten  or  unknown  as  that 
Morse  of  electric  telegraph  fame  began  his  career  in  the  same  way. 
At  the  age  of  twenty-one  he  went  abroad  to  study  and  pursue  art, 
but  was  soon  diverted  to  mechanics,  and  in  a few  years  engaged  in 
the  improvement  of  the  canal  navigation  of  Great  Britain,  a treatise 
upon  which  he  subsequently  published.  In  1794  he  went  to  Paris 
and  became  a member  of  the  family  of  Joel  Barlow,  where  he 
painted  a panorama,  the  first  ever  shown  in  the  French  capital.  In 
Paris,  under  the  auspices  of  the  French  government,  he  also  made 
experiments  on  the  Seine  with  submarine  navigation  to  be  used  in 
torpedo  warfare,  but,  owing  to  some  differences,  left  France  and 
went  back  to  England,  in  1804.  It  must  therefore  have  been  toward 
the  close  of  his  sojourn  in  France,  that  Houdon  modeled  his  bust  of 
Fulton,  as  it  is  inscribed  “houdon  An  xii  R.  Fulton  38  ans,”  which 
shows  it  to  have  been  done  before  September  22,  1803,  and  it  was  in 


M(D)BEMT  IFTUlLTdW 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  263 

the  Salon  of  August,  1804,  m marble.  A plaster  cast  belonging  to 
the  French  government,  originally  in  the  Versailles  Museum,  has 
been  transferred  recently  to  the  Musee  de  Marine,  and  the  cast 
from  which  our  reproduction  is  made  belongs  to  the  National 
Academy  of  Design,  New  York.  The  marble  is  unknown. 

Doubtless  it  was  about  the  same  time  that  Houdon  modeled  the 
Fulton  bust  he  modeled  his  bust  of  Joel  Barlow,  a marble  of  which 
was  also  in  the  Salon  of  1804,  probably  the  one  now  owned  by  a 
great-grandnephew  of  Barlow,  Mr.  H.  P.  Chambers  of  Washing- 
ton, Pa.  One  in  plaster  belongs  to  the  Pennsylvania  Academy  of  the 
Fine  Arts,  and  another  to  the  National  Academy  of  Design,  New 
York.  President  Madison  had  one  in  marble,  but  its  present  where- 
abouts cannot  be  traced.  As  may  be  seen,  Barlow  is  transformed  by 
Houdon  from  an  American  citizen  into  a French  citoyen,  which  does 
not  accord  at  all  with  Fulton’s  portrait  of  Barlow,  which  is  the  only 
familiar  likeness  of  him  that  we  have.  Yet  we  feel  like  saying, 
“Amen,”  to  Houdon  rather  than  to  Fulton,  where  a matter  of  por- 
traiture is  in  question.  The  author  of  the  “Columbiad”  went  to 
France  in  1788  as  the  agent  for  an  American  land  scheme  which 
failed,  and  he  became  a Girondist,  being  nominated  for  deputy  to 
the  National  Convention,  but  failed  of  election.  He  gave  up  poli- 
tics and  amassed  a fortune  in  speculations,  and  wrote  in  Paris  the 
poem  by  which  he  is  known.  He  returned  to  America,  in  1805,  and 
six  years  later  was  sent  as  Minister  to  France,  and  died  in  Poland, 
whither  he  had  gone  to  meet  Napoleon  at  the  latter’s  request. 


264 


Life  and  Works  of 


Houdon  also  exhibited  a colossal  statue  of  Cicero,  ordered  by  the 
Emperor  for  the  Senate  Chamber.  This  statue  has  been  variously 
criticized,  and  on  the  whole  does  not  seem  to  have  added  to  Hou- 
don’s  reputation,  but  it  is  easy  to  imagine  that,  with  the  standard 
set  by  himself  in  those  earlier  works,  like  his  Diana  and  his  Vol- 
taire, public  expectation  would  be  disappointed  in  anything  falling 
below  them,  while  a statue  possessing  half  their  merit,  by  any  other 
chisel,  might  have  been  considered  highly  meritorious. 

On  December  17th  of  1804,  Houdon  was  decorated  by  the  Em- 
peror with  the  Cross  of  the  Legion  of  Honor,  and  a little  later,  by 
decree  of  January  24,  1805,  “M.  Houdon,  sculptor  and  member  of 
the  National  Institute,  is  named  professor  of  the  special  schools  for 
painting,  sculpture  and  architecture,  taking  the  place  of  M.  Julien, 
deceased.”  He  had  been  appointed  an  adjunct  professor  of  the  old 
Academy  of  Painting  and  Sculpture  on  July  7,  1792,  which  of 
course  ceased  with  its  disestablishment  after  nearly  one  hundred  and 
fifty  years  of  life.1  This  new  honor  and  appointment  doubtless 
stimulated  and  encouraged  Houdon  very  sensibly,  judging  from 
the  superlative  quality  of  his  work  exhibited  in  1806.  That  his 
hand  had  not  lost  its  cunning  was  plainly  shown  in  the  noble  por- 
trait of  Napoleon,  when  Emperor,  made  from  life  sittings  given 

1 The  Academy  of  Painting  and  Sculpture  was  founded  by  Louis  XIV,  February  i, 
1648,  and  ceased  to  exist  August  8,  1793.  In  1795  the  National  Convention  established 
the  Institute  of  France  to  replace  the  old  academies,  which  were  revived  as  sections  of 
the  Institute,  and  under  the  Restoration  their  traditional  names  were  restored  to  them 
as  we  now  have  them.  Houdon’s  membership  in  the  Academy  dated  from  July  26,  1777, 
and  he  was  one  of  the  original  members  of  the  new  Institute. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  265 

at  St.  Cloud,  and  shown  at  the  Salon  in  1806.  The  Empress 
Josephine  gave  sittings  also  for  the  bust  of  her  which  he  modeled 
and  which  was  exhibited  at  the  same  time.  In  the  next  Salon,  of 
1808,  he  also  exhibited  busts  in  marble  of  the  Emperor  and  of  the 
Empress,  but  from  the  difference  between  the  bust  of  Napoleon  at 
Dijon  and  that  in  Versailles  they  were  probably  from  distinct  sit- 
tings. These  busts,  but  little  known  to-day,  had  the  merit  of 
being  most  striking  likenesses,  and  brought  Houdon  the  recogni- 
tion of  being  superior  to  all  his  rivals  in  the  portrayal  of  the 
imperial  pair;  the  opinion  upon  the  bust  of  Napoleon  being  unani- 
mous that  it  was  the  best  of  all  the  portraits  that  had  been  made 
of  him.  Delerot  and  Legrelle  say,  “The  critics  of  the  day  who  only 
had  enthusiasm  for  David  and  his  school  were  forced  to  accord  to 
Houdon  the  praise  that  real  merit  wrung  from  their  slight  sym- 
pathy, perhaps  their  ignorance,  perhaps  even  disdain  for  a distin- 
guished past.”  Of  the  splendid  bust  at  Dijon,  Armand  Dayot,  who 
commends  it  most  highly,  particularly  for  its  fine  showing  of  the 
imperialism  in  the  man,  says:1  “Bonaparte  by  Gros  is  not  merely 
an  out  and  out  masterpiece  in  drawing,  in  its  expression  of  action 
and  in  its  coloring,  but  also  a unique  document.  . . . And  to  con- 
vince oneself  of  the  sincerity  of  the  likeness,  its  exact  features  and 
its  truth  of  expression,  it  suffices  to  compare  it  for  a moment  with 
the  admirable  bust  of  the  Emperor,  by  Houdon,  now  to  be  found  in 
the  Museum  at  Dijon,  and  for  which  Napoleon  sat  as  well,  al- 

1 “Napoleon  raconte  par  l’lmage,  par  Armand  Dayot,”  Paris,  1902,  p.  24. 


266 


Life  and  Works  of 


though  less  frequently.  Lose  sight  for  a moment  of  the  long,  flow- 
ing hair,  round  out  the  outlines,  extinguish  the  fiery  glance  in  which 
the  glare  of  battle  lurks,  bare  the  torso  and  you  will  discover  the 
face  eternized  in  marble  by  the  great  sculptor  and  upon  which  the 
artist  has  impressed  with  so  much  genius  the  scornful  majesty  of 
the  Caesar.  The  portrait  of  the  hero  of  Arcole,  by  Gros ! The  bust 
of  the  Emperor,  by  Houdon!  Behold  the  two  portraits  typical  of 
Bonaparte  and  of  Napoleon!  The  two  immortal  likenesses  in 
which  one  may  read  the  magnetic  heroism  of  the  soldier  and  the 
gigantic  dream  of  the  Caesar.  Beyond  a doubt  the  painter  and  the 
statuary  have  instinctively  invested  their  subject  with  a species  of 
divine  grandeur.  But  what  matters  it  if  the  quasi-Olympian  ex- 
pression, well  justified  by  the  epic  grandeur  of  the  model,  does  not 
in  any  way  detract  from  the  truthfulness  of  the  face  and  features?” 
And  Claude  Phillips  has  written:  “Houdon,  . . . after  having 
portrayed,  with  unapproachable  mastery  and  insight,  the  most  in- 
teresting personalities  of  the  eighteenth  century,  ...  so  altered  his 
style  with  his  subject  as  to  produce  a sublime  bust  of  Napoleon  I— 
the  only  portrait  in  which,  without  theatrical  pose,  his  constructive 
ideality  is  convincingly  shown— and  to  occupy  himself  with  the 
bronze  adornments,  in  the  imperial  style,  which  were  destined  for 
the  great  column  of  Boulogne.” 

Houdon  had  earlier  made  a bust  of  Bonaparte  as  First  Consul, 
which  is  rated  as  one  of  the  best  likenesses  of  Napoleon  at  that 
period.  Unfortunately,  the  original  has  been  lost,  but  it  is  well 


M&JPCBTLM  (OI^T 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  267 

known  by  having  been  often  reproduced  at  Sevres,  in  small  sizes, 
and  in  our  frontispiece  the  sculptor  is  represented  modeling  this 
bust  on  his  block.  It  is  one  of  the  few  portraits  of  Napoleon  where 
he  is  represented  wearing  short,  close  side-whiskers.  Of  this  bust 
Michelet,  in  his  “History  of  the  Nineteenth  Century,”  says:  “I 
know  of  but  two  faithful  portraits  of  Napoleon.  One  is  the  small 
bust  by  Houdon  (1800),  wild,  dark  and  threatening,  suggesting  a 
sinister  enigma.  The  other  is  a painting,  and  represents  him  at  full 
length  in  his  cabinet  (1810).  It  is  a work  by  David.”  Here  we 
have  two  acute  criticisms  upon  Houdon’s  two  busts  of  Napoleon, 
as  First  Consul  and  as  Emperor,  by  two  different  minds,  by  Mi- 
chelet and  by  Dayot,  at  two  different  epochs,  and  but  one  conclu- 
sion can  be  deduced  from  them,  which  is  the  very  palpable  one,  that 
our  sculptor’s  delineations  of  the  same  man  at  two  different  periods 
of  his  career  are  the  best  renditions  of  Bonaparte  and  of  Napoleon 
that  have  come  down  to  us.  Michelet  selects  the  earlier  bust  as  the 
best  Bonaparte,  and  Dayot  selects  the  later  bust  as  the  best  Napo- 
leon. Surely  this  is  a crowning  of  a career  not  vouchsafed  to  many, 
and  shows  anew,  if  it  were  necessary,  how  consummate  an  artist 
Jean  Antoine  Houdon  was. 

Napoleon  gave  Houdon  frequent  sittings,  and  a note  in  Delerot 
and  Legrelle  states:  “We  have  before  us  a letter  of  Denon’s  (with- 
out date) , in  which  he  begs  Houdon  to  present  himself  at  St.  Cloud 
at  precisely  nine  o’clock  in  the  morning,  when  ‘the  Emperor  will 
give  him  a sitting.’  ” The  bust  at  Dijon  is  inscribed,  “Sa  Majeste 


268 


Life  and  Works  of 


l’Empereur,  Roy,  fait  d’apres  Nature,  Saint-Cloud  (Aout  1806), 
houdon  f.”  It  is  undraped  and  in  plaster,  and  was  sold  at  Houdon’s 
sale  in  1828  ( vide  Appendix  “E,”  No.  43),  and  bequeathed  by  M. 
Foisset  of  Dijon  to  the  Museum  of  that  town.  Those  in  marble  of 
the  Emperor  and  the  Empress  are  in  the  Museum  at  Versailles. 

A good  anecdote  connected  with  these  sittings  has  also  been  pre- 
served. The  story  goes  that  the  Emperor  liked  Houdon’s  candor, 
vivacity  and  simple  manners,  and  said  to  him,  “I  hold  you  in  great 
esteem,  M.  Houdon.  I want  to  do  something  that  will  be  as  agree- 
able to  yourself  as  that  which  you  are  doing  for  me.  Ask  of  me, 
therefore,  for  yourself  and  family  what  you  would  like  best.” 
“Well,  Sire,  the  sword  in  my  statue  of  Tourville  is  broken;  give 
orders  that  it  shall  be  repaired.”  “Ah,  there  speaks  the  true  artist,” 
Napoleon  is  said  to  have  replied,  shaking  him  warmly  by  the  hand. 

About  this  time,  a colossal  statue  of  Napoleon  to  surmount  a col- 
umn, voted  by  the  Expeditionary  Army  in  1804,  and  t0  be  erected 
at  Boulogne,  was  under  way.  Houdon  executed  the  model  ( 1805) , 
which  was  eighteen  feet  in  height.  The  Emperor  was  satisfied  with 
it,  and  Houdon  then  cast  it  in  bronze.  “The  Emperor  was  repre- 
sented standing  on  a shield,  upheld  by  three  eagles  with  extended 
wings,  and  the  figure  was  not  inferior  to  the  artist’s  best  works,  al- 
though he  was  then  sixty-five  years  of  age.” 

When  the  statue  was  about  being  sent  to  its  destination,  the  events 
of  1812  supervened.  The  idea  of  planting  it  by  the  seaside,  as  a 
spectre  intended  to  frighten  England,  was  abandoned.  1814  and 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  269 

1815  made  Houdon’s  statue  useless.  Not  only  was  no  site  deemed 
appropriate  for  it,  but  the  statue  was  not  even  preserved;  that  and 
the  bas-relief  for  the  pedestal  made  for  it  suffered  the  fate  of  perish- 
ing completely. 

Houdon  little  thought,  when  he  aided  the  now  little-known  ar- 
tist, Roguier,  by  his  advice  and  counsel  in  an  effort  to  plan  a com- 
pleted equestrian  statue  of  Henry  IV  on  the  Pont-Neuf,  that,  in 
something  over  a month’s  time,1  the  provisional  work  to  which  he 
lent  his  aid  would  lead  to  a completed  statue  of  which  his  own  Na- 
poleon would  form  a part.  But  that  is  what  happened ; for,  when 
the  necessary  metal  was  got  together  to  cast  Lemot’s  equestrian  sta- 
tue of  Henry  IV  which  was  erected  on  the  Pont-Neuf  in  1817,  the 
bronze  of  several  monuments  lying  in  the  government  workshops 
was  put  at  the  disposition  of  the  artist  by  the  Minister  of  the  In- 
terior, and  among  them  was  this  colossal  statue  of  Napoleon  by 
Houdon. 

Connected  with  this  melting  and  casting  of  Napoleon’s  effigy  into 
the  statue  of  Henry  IV,  a witticism  of  Houdon’s  is  preserved.  The 
aged  sculptor  was  found  one  day  standing  on  the  Pont  des  Arts, 
looking  over  at  the  equestrian  figure  on  the  Pont-Neuf.  Upon 
being  asked  at  what  he  was  gazing,  he  quietly  answered,  “I  had  not 
made  it  like  that.”2 

1 March  20  to  May  3.  Cf.  Lafolie,  pp.  91-94. 

2 It  seems  appropriate  to  state  here  that  the  well-known  bust  of  Mme.  Recamier, 
attributed  to  Houdon,  and  examples  of  which  bear  his  name  but  not  his  signature , is 
not  by  him,  according  to  a note  in  “Mme.  Recamier,”  from  the  French  of  fidouard 


270 


Life  and  Works  of 


The  Salon  of  1812  also  counted  Houdon  among  its  exhibitors; 
and  his  works  were  of  a character  to  attract  attention:  a bust  of 
Boissy  d’Anglas,  the  senator,  and  two  large  marble  statues— one  of 
General  Joubert  and  the  other  a new  Voltaire  for  the  library  of  the 
Institute,  but  which  was  installed  in  the  Pantheon.  We  speak  of  it 
as  a new  Voltaire,  for  it  was  not  a repetition  of  the  chef-d’oeuvre  at 
the  Comedie,  but  a new  figure  in  which  the  great  man  is  represented 
standing,  enveloped  in  heavy  drapery  so  disposed  as  to  allow  for 
the  accommodation  of  the  figure  in  a certain  niche  intended  for  its 
reception.  Buried  in  the  dark  recesses  of  the  Pantheon,  this  statue 
is  little  known,  but  a modern  French  writer,  having  seen  it  on  some 
recent  funeral  occasion,  dwells  at  considerable  length  on  its  artistic 
merit.  Earlier  criticism  speaks  in  praise  of  the  modeling  of  the 
head,  while  the  thinness  of  the  figure,  which  our  artist  deemed  it 
obligatory  to  portray,  is  spoken  of  as  making  the  body  appear  some- 
what too  long.  This  criticism  appeared  in  the  “Moniteur,”  in  1813, 
according  to  Montaiglon  and  Duplessis. 

These  statues  of  Joubert  and  of  Voltaire  were  the  last  to  go  to  the 
exhibitions  from  Houdon’s  hand,  and  they  are,  no  doubt,  the  last 
statues  that  he  made.  He  exhibited  his  last  bust  at  the  Salon  of 
1814;  but  the  destinies  of  France  had  changed  in  the  interval,  the 

Herriot  by  Alys  Hallard,  1906,  Vol.  II,  p.  380,  where  it  is  attributed  to  Chinard,  quot- 
ing from  Frederic  Masson,  in  the  “Figaro  Illustre,”  for  March,  1893.  In  the  catalogue 
of  Houdon’s  works  accompanying  the  brochure  of  Dr.  Hermann  Dierks  is  the  following 
entry:  “Recamier,  Madame.  Gypsum  (painted).  Attributed  to  Houdon.  In  the 
possession  of  Mr.  Louis  Cahen  of  Antwerp.”  Casts  of  it  in  plaster  and  in  bronze 
are  quite  familiar  in  the  shops. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  271 

Allies  had  entered  Paris,  and  this  bust  is  of  Alexander,  Emperor  of 
all  the  Russias.  “If  Houdon  had  been  younger,  his  reputation 
would  have  insured  him  as  many  works  as  were  accorded  the  brush 
of  Isabey,  and  he  would  have  modeled  all  the  kings  and  ministers 
and  foreign  generals  entering  Paris.  But  Houdon  was  too  far  on 
in  years  to  be  considered  in  such  a connection,  and  this  occasion, 
which  otherwise  would  have  been  productive  of  orders,  limited  it- 
self to  regal  visits.” 

The  final  sentence  in  the  above  quotation  alludes  to  the  visit  of 
the  King  of  Prussia  to  Houdon’s  studio,  in  company  with  Hum- 
boldt, recorded  in  the  “Moniteur”  of  September  18,  1815,  p.  1032, 
as  follows:  “His  Majesty  the  King  of  Prussia,  accompanied  by  the 
celebrated  traveler  M.  de  Humboldt,  visited  day  before  yesterday 
the  studio  of  M.  Houdon.  His  Majesty  appeared  particularly 
pleased  with  a bust  of  Moliere  in  which  the  artist  had  so  happily 
expressed  the  quality  of  his  talent,  as  well  as  faithfully  rendering 
the  features  of  the  creator  of  our  comic  stage.” 


CHAPTER  XIV 

1814-1828 


LAST  DAYS  AND  DEATH -PORTRAITS  OF  HOUDON-HIS  HONORS 

AND  HIS  GENIUS 

E have  been  dealing  with  Houdon  almost  entirely  from 
the  standpoint  of  his  art,  saying  but  little  of  his  person- 
ality beyond  an  occasional  reference  to  his  simplicity 
and  industry.  As  we  approach  the  end  of  his  career,  we  shall  en- 
deavor to  throw  more  light  upon  the  character  of  the  man  who,  for 
so  long  a period,  has  riveted  the  attention  of  all  Europe  by  his  won- 
derful artistic  genius. 

Devotion  to  his  art  was  the  key-note  of  his  existence.  We  see  it 
in  his  first  beginnings,  later  in  his  assiduity  at  Rome  and  resplend- 
ently  on  his  return  to  Paris.  With  that  eagerness  which  distin- 
guished him  in  his  art,  he  turned  to  advantage  every  opportunity 
for  modeling  the  likenesses  of  the  celebrities  of  his  day.  Houdon 
rarely  failed  to  make  the  busts  of  people  attracting,  even  though 
fleetingly,  public  attention.  In  pursuing  this  course,  he  was  sure  of 
drawing  the  attention  of  a great  number  of  people  to  his  work,  and 
his  popularity  gained  thereby.  Many  people  whom  his  best  works 
would  not  have  attracted  had  noticed  the  bust  of  Mile.  Lise.  Thus, 
also,  he  made  the  bust  of  Cagliostro,  which  Louis  Gonze  terms  “an 

272 


IHKDUIDO-W  A^ICD  IMAIDA^MIE  3HE  CD  HJ1B <D> 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  273 

excellent  work,  full  of  life  and  of  picturesqueness,  the  most  delicate 
execution,  simple  yet  robust,”  a marble  of  which,  signed,  “houdon 
f.  1786,”  may  be  found  in  the  Musee  d’Aix.  He  made  those  of  all 
the  aeronauts  of  the  day— Montgolfier,  Pilastre  des  Rosiers, 
Charles,  d’Arlandes  and  Robert.1  When  a subscription  was  opened 
for  striking  a gold  medal  in  honor  of  Montgolfier,  it  was  Houdon 
who  made  the  drawing  for  it.  A reflection  found  among  his  papers 
throws  light  on  this  marked  trait.  He  writes:  “One  of  the  finest 
attributes  of  the  difficult  art  of  the  sculptor  is  to  preserve  the  truth- 
fulness of  form  and  to  render  almost  imperishable  the  image  of 
those  who  have  contributed  either  to  the  glory  or  the  happiness  of 
their  country.  This  idea  has  followed  me  constantly,  and  encour- 
aged me  during  long  hours  of  labor.” 

He  seems  to  have  been  entirely  free  from  the  besetting  sins  of 
jealousy,  self-seeking  and  vanity  common  to  so  many  men  of  genius. 
Jefferson,  writing  to  Washington,  commends  him  in  the  highest 
terms,  and  Franklin,  who  passed  forty-eight  days  with  him  at  sea 
on  their  passage  to  this  country,  writes  of  him  in  the  most  flattering 
manner.  Testimony  of  this  character  is  of  the  most  convincing 
kind,  for  these  were  men  not  easily  deceived,  who  would  have  at 
once  detected  any  weakness  or  sordidness  in  our  artist’s  motives,  had 
any  lurked  there.  On  the  contrary,  they  are  ever  ready  to  bear  wit- 
ness to  his  high  integrity  of  purpose. 

Jefferson,  writing  from  Paris  to  William  Temple  Franklin,  un- 

1 “Journal  de  Paris,”  December  3,  1783. 


Life  and  Works  of 


274 

der  date  of  May  7,  1786,  states:  “Houdon  is  about  taking  a wife.” 
Houdon  was  then  in  his  forty- fifth  year.  On  July  1,  1786,  he  mar- 
ried Marie-Ange-Cecile  Langlois,  a native  of  Amiens,  whose  fa- 
ther was  in  the  service  of  the  King.  Had  Houdon  been  married  to 
her  when  he  visited  America,  and  had  she  chosen  to  accompany 
him,  he  would  not  have  needed  the  services  of  an  interpreter,  for 
her  knowledge  of  English  is  shown  through  a French  translation  of 
an  English  novel,  “Dalmour,”  which  she  published  in  1804.1  As 
we  have  seen,  three  daughters  were  the  issue  of  this  marriage. 
These  in  turn  contracted  marriages,  the  husband  of  Anne-Ange, 
the  second  daughter,  being  Desire-Raoul  Rochette,  a man  of  con- 
siderable artistic  and  scientific  attainments.2  It  seems  to  have  been 
the  latter’s  intention  to  have  written  a biography  of  Houdon,  and 
much  regret  has  been  expressed  by  French  writers  that  he  failed  to 
carry  out  this  intention.  He  did  write  a biographical  introduction 
to  the  Catalogue  of  1828,  which  is  frequently  referred  to. 

As  we  have  already  stated,  after  1814,  Houdon,  being  seventy- 
three  years  of  age,  gradually  withdrew  more  and  more  from  active 
life.  He  continued  to  teach,  however,  probably  until  about  his 
eightieth  year.  As  has  been  epigrammatically  put,  “Toward  the 

1 Marie-Ange-Cecile  Langlois  Houdon  was  as  much  distinguished  for  her  wit  as  for 
her  beauty.  This  lady  made  an  elegant  and  faithful  translation  of  an  English  novel, 
“Dalmour,”  by  Miss  Darner.  She  died  in  Paris  in  1823,  aged  75  years.  “Biographie 
Universelle,”  Paris,  1858  (Michaud),  Vol.  XX,  p.  49. 

2 The  eldest  daughter  married  M.  Henri- Jean  Pineau  Duval,  while  the  youngest 
became  the  wife  of  Dr.  Louyer-Villerme,  and  a daughter  of  Mme.  Rochette  married 
the  distinguished  Italian  engraver  Luigi  Calamatta. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  275 

end,  he  consoled  himself  for  not  producing  busts  by  turning  out 
artists.” 

He  began  now  also  nightly  to  frequent  the  performances  at  the 
Theatre-Frangais  as  a means  of  agreeable  relaxation,  and  among 
the  anecdotes  preserved  of  him  at  this  late  period  is  one  connected 
with  the  Theatre.  It  so  happened  that  the  building  was  closed  for 
a considerable  period  of  time  during  certain  alterations.  On  the 
day  of  its  reopening  Houdon  came  as  usual,  but  a new  ticket-taker 
had  been  engaged  since  his  last  visit. 

“Sir,  sir,  your  ticket!” 

“I  don’t  need  any,”  and  the  venerable  figure  continued  to  ad- 
vance. 

“But,  sir,  no  one  enters  without  a ticket.” 

“I  have  my  entrance,  sir.”  (Growing  warm.) 

“But  how  do  you  call  yourself?” 

“How  I call  myself!”  (Voice  growing  louder.)  “How  I call 
myself!”  Then,  pointing  to  the  statue  in  the  peristyle,  “I  ’m  the 
father  of  Voltaire!”  And  he  passed  in  triumphantly  without  fur- 
ther reply.  The  amusing  part  is  that  the  next  evening,  as  Houdon 
passed  in,  the  ticket-taker  turned  to  his  assistant  and  instructed  him 
to  inscribe  on  the  register  of  entries  for  the  evening,  “M.  Voltaire, 
le  pere.”  It  is  easy  to  imagine  the  hilarious  reception  of  this  at  the 
Theatre,  and  for  some  time  after  our  old  habitue  passed  under  this 
cognomen  entirely. 

But  the  time  came  when  he  was  no  longer  able  to  venture  abroad 


Life  and  Works  of 


276 

after  nightfall,  and  if  contemporary  opinion  had  been  consulted  at 
the  Frangais  it  would  doubtless  have  placed  his  death  at  1824  or 
1825,  f°r  after  Aat  he  was  little  there.  It  was  at  eighty-two  years 
of  age,  after  having  enjoyed  unchanging  health  with  the  one  ex- 
ception of  an  attack  shortly  before  embarking  for  America,  that 
serious  illness  overtook  him.  His  iron  constitution  triumphed, 
however,  but  from  this  time  on  he  grew  weaker.  Finally,  in  his 
eighty-seventh  year,  on  the  1 5th  of  July,  1828, 1 his  light  was  extin- 
guished. 

Houdon’s  fame  has  not  merely  been  maintained,  but,  judging 
from  articles  that  have  appeared  in  the  magazines  and  art  reviews 
of  England,  France  and  Germany  during  the  past  score  of  years,  is 
steadily  on  the  increase.  Every  critic  undeviatingly  bends  the  knee 
to  him,  and  each  and  all  hail  him  as  one  of  the  truly  great  artists  of 
France. 

Through  the  instrumentality  of  the  Society  of  Arts  and  Letters 
at  Versailles,  his  native  town,  a statue  has  been  erected  there  to  his 
memory.  Among  the  subscribers  to  the  fund,  and  following  a sub- 
scription of  10,000  francs  by  the  municipality,  we  find  the  Emperor 
of  Russia  contributing  1000  francs,  with  a note  from  the  Russian 
Ambassador  expressing  the  high  appreciation  entertained  by  his 
countrymen  for  Houdon’s  talent.  What  was  of  especial  interest  as 
showing  the  nation’s  homage  to  the  memory  of  its  greatest  sculptor, 
was  the  permit  issued  by  the  state  to  open,  for  a benefit  perform- 

1 Jal,  “Dictionnaire  Critique  de  Biographie  et  d’Histoire,”  Paris,  1872,  p.  689. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  277 

ance  in  aid  of  the  statue,  the  Trianon  Theatre,  which  had  been 
closed  since  Marie  Antoinette  last  appeared  there  on  the  stage, 
August  19,  1785,  when  she  acted  Rosina , in  Beaumarchais’s  “Bar- 
bier  de  Seville.”  The  receipts  from  the  two  performances  that  were 
given  amounted  to  the  handsome  sum  of  10,880  francs,  a generous 
tribute  from  the  people  to  art  and  the  artist.  The  monument  was 
inaugurated  with  much  ceremony  on  the  28th  of  June,  1891.1  The 
statue  itself  we  have  not  seen;  a sketch,  however,  by  F.  Prud- 
homme,  is  before  us.  The  attitude  of  the  figure  is  rather  theatrical 
— the  artist,  whether  intentionally  or  not,  seeking  to  idealize  the  art 
of  sculpture  rather  than  to  present  a truthful  likeness  of  the  subject. 
The  latter  stands  as  if  making  an  address  from  the  tribune,  the  left 
arm  extended,  the  hand  holding  a chisel,  while  the  right,  in  which 
a mallet  is  grasped,  rests  upon  a partly  finished  and  roughly  hewn 
bust,  evidently  of  Voltaire.  To  connect  him  with  this  event  of  his 
career  a more  mature  figure  is  demanded,  for  Houdon  was  ap- 
proaching forty  at  that  time.  A specimen  of  his  work  during  his 
apprenticeship  at  Rome  would  have  been  more  in  harmony  with 
the  youthful  stripling  evoked  by  M.  Tony  Noel,  the  sculptor  of  the 
figure. 

Paris  has  her  “Salle  Houdon”  in  the  Louvre,  in  which  are  gath- 
ered twenty-two  of  Houdon’s  works,  including  a Diana  in  bronze, 
the  marble  Morphee,  his  wife  and  two  of  his  daughters,  and  busts 
of  some  half  dozen  of  his  most  renowned  subjects.  But,  as  our 

1 “Autour  de  la  Statue  de  Jean  Houdon,  par  Albert  Terrade,”  Versailles,  1892. 


Life  and  Works  of 


278 

catalogue  will  show,  France  treasures  our  artist’s  work  in  other  mu- 
seums within  her  borders:  the  Museum  at  Montpellier  prob- 
ably contains  one  of  the  most  representative  collections,  although 
Dijon  and  Tours  especially  possess  choice  examples  of  Houdon’s 
genius.  At  Versailles,  also,  some  of  his  most  important  busts  will 
be  found.  Paris  has  further  commemorated  his  memory  in  a “Rue 
Houdon.”  But  these  are  posthumous  honors,  for  which  he  did  not 
have  to  wait  to  receive  evidences  of  general  appreciation.  He  was 
so  well  known  that  when  a writer  of  fiction  of  his  day  had  need  for 
a great  sculptor’s  name,  that  of  Houdon  fell  naturally  from  his  pen. 
Thus  de  Tressan,  in  his  pretty  story,  “Petit  Jehan  de  Saintre,” 
writes  this  passage.  He  is  describing  a monk  brought  up  in  an 
abbey.  “His  talents,  his  charming  countenance,  his  strength,  his 
measure  of  height,  perfected  themselves  from  day  to  day,  and  the 
celebrated  Houdon  would  have  chosen  him  as  a model  had  he 
wished  to  chisel  a Hercules.” 

In  addition  to  being  made  a Chevalier  of  the  Legion  of  Honor 
by  Napoleon,  as  we  have  seen,  he  was  made  a Chevalier  of  the  Em- 
pire by  letters  patent  of  January  28,  1809,  which  eight  years  later 
was  confirmed  by  Louis  XVIII. 

As  some  persons  can  better  measure  the  appreciation  of  an  artist 
by  the  commercial  value  of  his  works,  Houdon  will  not  fall  below 
their  estimate  when  tested  by  this  commercialism.  Almost  three 
decades  ago,  in  1883,  at  the  Baroness  de  Courvalle’s  sale,  Houdon’s 
marble  bust  of  Mme.  Servat  sold  for  44,000  francs,  while  at  the 


]HE(D)TCJ3D)(Q)^ 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  279 

famous  Talleyrand-Sagan  sale  in  Paris,  May,  1899,  Houdon’s  Mo- 
liere,  in  white  marble,  signed  and  dated  1782,  brought  50,000 
francs,  and  his  bust  of  La  Fontaine,  in  the  same  material,  30,000 
francs.  In  1908,  a well-known  London  dealer  had  plaster  busts  of 
Voltaire  and  of  Rousseau,  which  had  been  presented  to  the  Societe 
des  Amis  de  l’lnstruction,  at  Geneva,  in  the  eighteenth  century, 
and  bearing  a seal  inscribed,  “Acade.  Royale  de  Peinture  et  Sculp. 
Houdon  sc.,”  for  which  he  asked  two  thousand  pounds.  They  were 
acquired  by  Mr.  J.  P.  Morgan,  and  are  now  in  the  Metropolitan 
Museum  of  Art,  New  York.  The  sale  of  the  Diana  in  New  York, 
in  1910,  for  $51,000,  and  of  the  Claudine  in  Paris,  this  year,  for 
48,000  francs,  are  further  proof. 

Now  that  we  have  seen  Houdon  in  his  life  and  in  his  works,  we 
naturally  turn  to  consider  what  manner  of  man  he  was;  how  he 
appeared  to  his  contemporaries  and  to  his  friends  and  to  the  legion 
of  distinguished  personages  whose  individual  personalities  have 
been  preserved  for  us  by  his  magical  genius. 

Some  writer,  carried  away  by  epigrammatism,  has  derisively 
written,  “Portraiture  is  nothing  more  than  art  placed  at  the  service 
of  vanity,”  and  then  seeks,  irrationally,  to  controvert  Lessing’s  argu- 
ment that,  in  the  portrait,  it  is  sought  to  represent  the  ideal  of  a 
determinate  person  and  not  that  of  men  in  general,  and  to  place 
portraiture  below  works  of  the  imagination  as  being  a mere  copying 
of  the  subject  or  model.  While  vanity  may  be  the  mainspring  in- 
stigating many  persons  to  have  their  portraits  preserved,  it  is  not 


28o 


Life  and  Works  of 


only  a pardonable  vanity  but  it  is  a laudable  one,  and,  far  from 
degrading  art  and  the  artist  to  the  plane  of  a mere  copying,  ele- 
vates both ; portraiture  being  in  art  what  biography  is  in  letters — 
its  highest  department.  “How  dead  the  past  would  be  but  for  the 
‘counterfeit  presentments’  that  we  have  of  the  men  and  women  who 
lived  in  the  days  that  have  gone  before ! ‘We  see  the  faithful  effigies 
of  those  who  have  played  extraordinary  parts  and  proved  them- 
selves select  men  among  men.  We  read  their  countenances,  we 
trace  their  characters  and  conduct  in  the  unreal  images,  and  then, 
as  if  made  free  of  their  company,  follow  on  with  redoubled  anima- 
tion the  events  in  which  they  lived  and  moved  and  had  their 
being.’  ”*  As  Carlyle  once  wrote,  “In  all  my  poor  historical  in- 
vestigation it  has  been,  and  always  is,  one  of  the  most  primary  wants 
to  procure  a bodily  likeness  of  the  person  inquired  after.”  We  want 
to  see  the  features,  the  physical  individuality,  of  the  personages 
about  whom  we  read.  Without  such  a visible  record,  without  the 
power  of  picturing  to  our  mind  the  individual  as  he  was,  his  name 
and  fame  are  mere  abstractions  to  us,  and  we  lose  half  the  force  of 
his  personality.  In  the  expression  of  a man’s  countenance,  we  can 
always  trace  his  character,  and  we  retain  a more  correct  recollection 
of  his  actions  by  keeping  in  our  minds  a lively  impression  of  his 
appearance.  That  it  is  not  true  portraiture  is  a mere  copying,  it  is 
only  necessary  to  have  recourse  to  the  lifelike  character  busts  that 

1 “Hints  on  Portraits  and  How  to  Catalogue  Them,”  by  Charles  Henry  Hart,  Phila- 
delphia, 1898,  p.  9. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  281 

Houdon  modeled,  and  compare  them  with  the  perfunctory  por- 
traits that  we  know  of  the  same  subjects  by  other  hands.  Without 
ever  having  seen  the  originals,  we  will  see  the  difference  in  the  por- 
trait by  the  true  artist,  who  depicts  not  only  the  features  of  the  sub- 
ject, but  also  the  spirit  and  the  character,  making  the  portrait 
vibrant  with  life,  and  the  portrait  by  the  mere  copyist,  whose  every 
line  is  true  and  exact,  but  dead.  As  Claude  Phillips  has  said,1 
“Houdon  joins  a masterly  skill  in  the  presentation  of  the  osseous 
and  muscular  structure  of  the  human  head  and  a magic  power  of 
vivifying  with  the  Promethean  spark  of  life  the  faithful  reproduc- 
tion thus  obtained.  To  this  power  Houdon  adds  a rarer  skill,  for 
his  portraits  not  only  represent  the  living,  breathing  man,  but  they 
suggest,  with  a subtle  truth,  free  from  a touch  of  exaggeration,  the 
human  individual.”  If  the  position  asserted  by  the  epigrammatist 
were  tenable,  nothing  could  be  more  satisfactory  in  portraiture  than 
the  pictures  produced  by  the  camera.  Yet  every  one  knows  that, 
while  they  are  doubtless  almost  mathematically  exact,  they  are 
wholly  unsatisfactory.  A portrait  is  not  a copy— a mathematically 
exact  reproduction  of  the  features  and  form.  It  is  the  expression  of 
the  character  that  dominates  the  portrait.  As  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds 
has  said  in  one  of  his  discourses,  “In  portraits  the  grace,  and  we 
may  add  the  likeness,  consists  more  in  taking  the  general  air  than  in 
observing  the  exact  similitude  of  every  feature.”  Therefore  it  is 
supremely  true  that  in  portraiture  both  artist  and  public  find  the 

1 “London  Art  Journal,”  1893,  P-  80. 


282 


Life  and  Works  of 


keenest  satisfaction,  and  that  the  greatest  works  of  art,  of  the  past 
and  of  the  present,  are  portraits.  Such  being  the  case,  we  are  in- 
deed grateful  to  Houdon  that  he  was  not  unmindful  to  leave  his 
own  portrait  behind  him  for  us  to  see  what  manner  of  man  he  was, 
although  not  by  his  own  hand.1 

Augustin  Jal,  in  his  erudite  and  recondite  critical  dictionary  of 
history  and  biography,  gives  this  slight  pen  portrait  of  Houdon:  “I 
knew  him  at  an  advanced  age.  He  was  a lively  little  man,  striking 
in  appearance  and  manner,  who,  when  I met  him,  was  approaching 
second  childhood.  He  was  not  completely  oblivious  of  the  past, 
and  still  conversed  well  about  sculpture,  of  those  works  of  his  own 
which  he  specially  prized,  of  the  period  of  his  fame,  of  Voltaire 
and  of  Franklin,  and  of  the  other  illustrious  men,  his  contem- 
poraries, who  had  sat  to  his  chisel.”  His  venerable  appearance  and 
the  expression  of  his  face  inspired  the  respect  that  it  commanded, 
and  gave  Gerard  the  desire  to  have  him  as  a model  for  one  of  the 
old  men  in  his  well-known  painting  of  the  “Entry  of  Henry  IV 
into  Paris.”  which  was  exhibited  in  the  Salon  of  1817.  Houdon, 
with  his  usual  kindliness,  consented,  and  he  is  one  of  the  three  mag- 
istrates who  offer  the  keys  of  the  city  to  the  King.  Gerard  was  so 
impressed  by  Houdon’s  physiognomy  that  he  has  repeated  his  face 
in  several  other  heads  in  the  picture,  with  changes  insufficient  to 
disguise  the  original.  We  are  also  fortunate  in  having  several  di- 

1 While  it  is  quite  common  for  painters  to  paint  their  own  portraits,  we  recall  no 
instance  of  a sculptor  modeling  his  own  bust. 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  283 

rect  portraits  of  Houdon,  although  they  all  show  him  in  advanced 
years. 

Mile.  Capet,  the  clever  pupil  of  Mme.  Guiard,  who  became  the 
second  wife  of  Vincent,  the  painter,  exhibited  in  the  Salon  of  1800  a 
large  miniature  of  Houdon,  one-quarter  life  size,  in  which  he  was 
represented  working  on  a bronze  of  Voltaire.  Jacques  Fremy 
painted  and  etched  a sketch  in  profile,  wearing  the  decoration  of 
the  Legion  of  Honor,  which,  although  slight,  being  not  much  more 
than  an  outline,  is  said  to  have  been  a striking  likeness.  In  1808, 
when  Rembrandt  Peale  was  painting  in  Paris,  he  knew  Houdon 
well  and  painted  a fine  portrait  of  him,  as  also  one  of  David  and 
one  of  Denon,  all  three  of  which  are  in  the  Pennsylvania  Academy 
of  the  Fine  Arts  at  Philadelphia.  But  the  portrait  of  Houdon  by 
which  he  will  go  down  to  posterity  is  the  work  of  Louis  Boilly. 
Boilly  painted  him  at  least  three  times,  but  the  most  interesting  is 
the  one  we  use  as  our  frontispiece,  where  the  sculptor,  in  a suit  of 
white,  is  standing  before  his  block,  modeling  the  bust  of  Bonaparte 
as  First  Consul.  It  is  one  of  those  characteristic  portraits  that 
speaks  for  its  own  truthfulness  to  every  one,  and  belonged  a few 
years  since  to  M.  Soret,  of  Versailles,  from  which  our  illustration 
is  reproduced.  Boilly  made  a lithograph  of  a full-face  portrait  of 
Houdon,  in  his  series  of  members  of  the  Institute  of  France,  pub- 
lished in  1822.  He  also  painted  large  canvases  of  “Houdon  in  his 
Atelier  among  his  Students,”  and  of  “Houdon  at  Work  in  the 
Presence  of  his  Three  Daughters,”  the  subject  sitting  being,  as  is 


284 


Life  and  Works  of 


thought,  Laplace  the  astronomer,  although  his  bust  is  not  among 
Houdon’s  known  works.1  The  first  of  these  paintings  is  in  the  Mu- 
seum at  Cherbourg,  and  the  last  in  the  Museum  at  Lille.  From 
these  several  life  portraits  M.  Elias  Roberts  made,  in  1853,  a mar" 
ble  bust  for  the  Gallery  of  Artists  in  the  Louvre,  but  it,  of  course, 
has  merely  commemorative  value  and  not  the  authority  of  a life 
portrait.  Of  similar  character  is  the  most  recent  bust  of  Houdon, 
which  surmounts  a monument  executed  by  P.  Gasq,  of  Paris,  form- 
ing one  of  a group,  in  the  Cour  du  Carrousel,  commemorating  sev- 
eral celebrated  artists  of  France.  The  model  was  exhibited  in  the 
Salon  of  1909,  and  consists  of  a column,  supporting  the  bust,  with  a 
figure  of  Diana,  at  the  foot,  gazing  up  at  the  master.  The  artist  has 
striven  to  portray  Houdon  at  the  moment  of  the  conception  or  in- 
spiration of  his  Diana,  and  the  expression  is  finely  produced,  while 
the  female  figure  is  extremely  graceful  and  well  modeled. 

In  bringing  to  a conclusion  this  volume,  which  has  been  a work 
of  unfailing  pleasure  to  the  writers,  it  seems  pertinent  to  inquire 
if  any  influence  controlled  Houdon,  in  the  development  of  his 
art,  beyond  his  own  transcendent  genius.  At  the  period  of 
Houdon’s  return  to  Paris,  Diderot  was  the  ruling  king  in  the  realm 
of  artistic  criticism,  and  it  is  manifest  that  the  sculptor  early  made 
the  acquaintance  of  the  critic,  as  the  latter’s  bust,  by  the  former,  was 
exhibited  in  1771.  It  was  against  the  faults  of  mannerism  that 

1 At  a loan  exhibition  of  decorative  art  in  Paris  in  April,  1906,  there  was  exhibited 
a bronze  bust  of  Joseph  Vernet,  the  painter,  attributed  to  Houdon,  but  this  is  its  only 
record. 


A£f(Gr]E  M'CCDTUUKD)^ 


Jean  Antoine  Houdon  285 

Diderot  especially  inveighed,  and  he  sought  to  convert  artists  to  the 
simple  and  unaffected  style ; and  owing  to  the  striking  similarity  in 
the  ideas  shared  by  the  critic  and  the  sculptor,  as  to  the  underlying 
principles  of  art,  and  the  possession,  by  Houdon,  of  all  the  qualities 
exactingly  required  by  Diderot  in  an  artist,  Delerot  and  Legrelle 
consider  Diderot  “the  adviser  if  not  the  director  of  Houdon’s 
talent.”  But  to  arrive  at  this  conclusion  it  is  necessary  to  expunge 
from  the  list  of  Houdon’s  works  the  great  Saint  Bruno,  his  first 
work,  which  was  wrought  in  Rome  before,  we  might  almost  say, 
Houdon  had  ever  heard  of  Diderot,  certainly  before  he  could  pos- 
sibly have  come  under  his  influence,  and  which  possesses  all  the 
distinguishing  traits  of  Houdon’s  latest  work,  being  marked  above 
all  other  qualities  by  its  severe  simplicity.  If  there  were  any  con- 
trolling influence  exerted  by  one  upon  the  other,  it  would  rather  be 
of  the  practical  artist  upon  the  theoretical  critic,  but  in  fact  it  is 
only  what  is  so  often  found  between  two  minds  working  in  the  same 
direction— an  intellectual  affinity;  and  when  they  met  they  found 
that  congeniality  of  taste  and  thought  that  doubtless  helped  each 
onward  in  his  respective  work. 


APPENDICES 


Appendix  A 

Houdon*  s Account  of  Expenses  of  his  Voyage  to  and  from 
America , If 88,  October  20th.1 

Acheve  des  Memoires,  Quittances  et  Bordereaux  que  M.  houdon  a 
conserves  relativement  a ses  depenses  pour  son  voyages  de  Paris  en  Ame- 
rique  et  son  retour  en  cette  ville  luy  et  3 eleves  pour  le  servir  et  l’aider 
dans  son  travail,  depuis  le  mois  de  juillet  1785  jusqu’au  trente  un  De- 


cembre  meme  annee. 

Frais  de  Poste  pour  luy  et  un  de  ses  eleves  de  Paris  au  Havre  151.8 
Frais  de  Poste  pour  les  Deux  autres  eleves  et  d’auberge 

pour  les  trois  pendant  leur  sejour 101. 

Pour  des  Bottes 54.6 

Achat  de  diverses  choses  necessaires  pendant  la  traversee 

fait  a Southampton 81. 


Achat  d’outils  de  terre  d’utenciles  necessaires  pour  faire  le 
Buste  du  General  Washington,  attendu  que  les  caisses  qui 
renfermoient  les  effets  de  M.  Houdon  ne  sont  arrivees 
peu  pres  de  six  mois  apres  son  depart  pour  la  france  fait 


a Philadelphie 113. 

Paye  au  tailleur  pour  l’habillement  complet  des  quatre  per- 

sonnes  par  la  raison  cy  dessus 552. 

Au  chapelier  id  one 60. 

Au  cordonier  id 90. 

Bas  linge  Le  id 112. 

La  Blanchissage  des  quatre  personnes  pendant  la  totalite  du 

voyage 75. 


1,389.14 

1 This  account,  in  Houdon’s  own  hand,  bearing  above  endorsement,  was  sent  by 
Jefferson  to  the  Governor  of  Virginia,  with  the  following  memorandum:  “M.  Houdon 
having  accompanied  Dr.  Franklin  to  America,  who  was  equally  employed  with  myself 
by  the  State  of  Virginia,  the  expenses  herein  charged  were  under  his  eyes  and  authority 
till  Houdon’s  departure  from  America.  The  subsequent  articles  were  examined  and 
approved  by  me.  Thos.  Jefferson.” 


288 


Appendix  A 


289 


[translation] 

Totality  of  Memoranda  containing  Receipts  and  Accounts  kept  by  M. 
Houdon  relating  to  his  expenditures  for  his  voyages  from  Paris  to  Amer- 
ica, and  his  return  to  that  city,  for  himself  and  three  pupils  to  serve  and 
assist  him  in  his  work,  from  the  month  of  July,  1785,  until  31st  Decem- 
ber of  the  same  year. 


Charges  for  post-stage  for  himself  and  one  of  his  Pupils, 

Paris  to  Havre 151.8 

Charges  for  post-stage  for  the  two  other  pupils  and  Inn 

charges  for  the  three  during  their  stay 101. 

For  Boots 54.6 

Purchase  of  various  necessary  articles  for  the  crossing 

(made  at  Southampton) 81. 


Purchase  of  clay  tools  and  utensils  needed  in  making  the 
bust  of  Gen’l  Washington,  owing  to  these  having  been  in- 


closed with  the  effects  of  Mr.  Houdon  not  arriving  until 
nearly  six  months  after  the  latter’s  departure  for  France 
— made  in  Philadelphia 113. 

Paid  to  the  tailor  for  complete  outfit  of  four  persons  re- 
ferred to  above 552. 

To  Hatter,  id  one 60. 

To  Shoemaker,  id 90. 

To  Stockings  and  Linen,  id 112. 

Washing  for  the  four  persons  during  the  entire  voyage  . . 75. 


1,389.14 


290 


Appendix  A 


de  l’autre  part  ....  1,389.14 

Depense  a Fauberge  de  Philadelphie  pendant  18  jours  pour 

de  l’autre  part  les  4 personnes 399. 

Frais  de  la  Route  de  Philadelphie  a Alexandrie  pour  les 

memes  compris  les  frais  d’auberge  et  de  retour  . . . 970. 

Depense  a Fauberge  de  Philadelphie  apres  le  retour  d’ Alex- 
andrie pour  les  memes  jusqu’au  depart  de  M.  Houdon 
et  d’un  eleve  de  cette  ville,  environ  un  sejour  de  18  jours  400. 

Paye  a Fauberge  pendant  5 semaines  apres  son  depart  pour 

les  deux  autres  eleves 264. 

Leur  route  de  Philadelphie  a New  York  leur  frais  d’auberge 

pendant  la  route  et  le  sejour  en  attendant  le  vaisseau  . . 185. 

Celle  de  M.  Houdon  et  de  son  eleve  au  meme  a meme  endroit  328.10 

Plus  solde  avec  MM.  Franklin  Pere  et  fils  Heyder  Veydt  et 
Cie  pour  frais  paye  par  eux  pendant  le  sejour  de  M. 

Houdon  tant  en  Angleterre  qu’en  Amerique  et  diverses 

Achats 4,315.12 

Passage  des  deux  Eleves  en  f ranee 1,000. 

Leur  sejour  a FOrient  et  leur  retour  a Paris 309. 

Plus  memes  a memes  frais,  et  frais  d’auberge  de  . 403.18 

Passage  de  M.  Houdon  et  de  son  Eleve  d’Amerique  en 

angleterre 15314- 

Route  de  falmouth  a Londres,  idem  312. 

Frais  d’auberge  pendant  la  route  et  a Londre  et  achat  de 

diverses  choses  necessaires 450. 


12,040.14 


Appendix  A 291 

[translation] 

Brought  forward  . . 1,389.14 

Expenses  at  the  Inn  in  Philadelphia  during  eighteen  days 

for  four  (4)  persons  399. 

Expenses  for  Journey  from  Philadelphia  to  Alexandria  for 
the  same,  including  expenses  at  public  house  and  return 

journey 970. 

Expenditure  at  Inn  in  Philadelphia  after  return  from  Alex- 
andria for  the  same  until  departure  of  Mr.  Houdon  and 
one  pupil  from  this  town,  equaling  a stay  of  about  eigh- 
teen days 400. 

Paid  at  the  Inn  during  five  weeks,  after  his  departure,  for 

the  two  other  pupils 264. 

Their  journey  from  Philadelphia  to  New  York,  their 
charges  at  the  Inn  during  the  journey  and  for  their  stay 

while  awaiting  the  vessel 185. 

That  of  M.  Houdon  and  his  pupil  for  the  same,  the  same 

passage 328.10 

Add  liquidated  through  Messrs  Franklin,  Father  and  Son, 

Heyder  Veydt  & Co.  for  charges  paid  by  them  during 
the  stay  of  M.  Houdon  in  England  as  well  as  in  America 

and  various  purchases 4,315.12 

Passage  money  of  two  (2)  pupils  to  France 1,000. 

Their  stay  at  l’Orient  and  their  return  to  Paris  ....  309. 

Add  for  same  and  same  expenses,  and  charges  at  Inn  . . 403.18 

Passage  money  of  Mr.  Houdon  and  his  pupil  from  America 

to  England 1,3 14. 

Journey  Falmouth  to  London  for  same 312. 

Charges  at  Inn  during  journey  to  London  and  purchase  of 

various  necessary  articles 450. 


12,040.14 


292 


Appendix  A 


de  l’autre  part  ....  12,040.14 


Frais  de  retour  de  Londre  a Paris  pour  les  memes  . . . 400. 

Paye  a l’emballeur  pour  les  caisses 73. 18 

Frais  de  caisse  venu  de  Londre  a Paris  par  Dunkerque  . . 54.6 


12,568.18 

Regu  en  Nov.  28,  1785 2,724.66 

Fevrier  20,  1786,  d’une  lettre  de  change  . . . 2,400. 

Mars  4,  idem 3,600. 

1787 105.02 

1788,  Oct.  20 2,721.93 

11,550.17.9 

Reste  du  a M.  Houdon  1,018.3 


Appendix  A 


293 


[translation] 

Brought  forward  . . 

Charges  for  return  from  London  to  Paris  for  the  same  . 

Paid  packer  for  packing  effects 

Charges  for  effects  brought  from  London  to  Paris  via 
Dunkirk  ....  * 

Received  Nov.  28,  1785 2,724.66 

Feb.  20,  1786,  from  letter  of  credit  ....  2,400. 

Mar.  4 3,600. 

1787  “ “ “ “ ....  105.02 

1788  Oct.  20 2,721.93 


Remaining  due  Mr.  Houdon 


12,040.14 

400. 

73-i8 

54-6 

12,568.18 


11,550.17.9 

1,018.3 


Appendix  B 


Explanation  of  the  Model  for  the  Statue  of  the  King,  which  the 
Sieur  Houdon  has  the  honor  to  submit  to  the  States  of  Brittany , 
and  that  he  has  executed  at  the  request  of  Messieurs  the  Deputies. 

The  Sieur  Houdon  has  conceived  that  this  monument  should  express 
the  feeling  that  has  prompted  the  States  of  the  Province  of  Brittany  in 
having  it  erected;  he  conceives  that  he  should  follow  the  rule  of  unity  or 
principle  adopted  in  sculpture  as  in  all  the  other  arts. 

He  has  desired  that  this  monument  should  be  such  as  a native-born 
artist  of  Brittany  would  have  conceived,  who,  being  present  at  the 
Session  when  the  State  voted  the  statue,  would  have  shared,  as  a native- 
born  subject,  the  sentiments  pervading  that  august  assembly,  the  wish  to 
raise  to  the  King  a lasting  monument  of  their  affection  and  gratitude. 

Explanation  of  the  Subject.  The  King  seated  on  the  throne,  showing 
to  Brittany  at  his  right  hand  the  emblematical  figure  on  his  left,  and 
telling  him  to  take  from  its  hands  the  patent  assuring  him  of  the  free- 
dom of  his  Deputies.  Brittany,  prostrate  with  gratitude  and  respect, 
looks  at  the  King,  and  takes  the  patent  offered  him  by  the  emblematic 
figure;  the  arms  of  the  King  behind  the  throne,  the  coat  of  arms  of 
Brittany  at  his  feet.  There  is  no  other  pedestal  but  the  steps  to  the 
throne. 

The  bas-reliefs  will  represent,  if  deemed  appropriate : 

The  first— The  union  of  Brittany  and  France; 

The  second— The  son  of  Francis  I,  created  Duke  of  Brittany,  1532; 
The  third— Henry  IV,  present  at  the  meeting  of  the  States  of  Brit- 
tany, 1590; 


294 


Appendix  B 295 

The  fourth— Louis  XIV,  present  at  the  meeting  of  the  States  of  Brit- 
tany, 1661. 

Eight  inscriptions,  relative  to  the  monument,  on  two  sides  of  each 
bas-relief;  above  each,  the  attributes  of  the  three  orders  and  the  at- 
tributes of  the  nobility  will  indicate  those  of  the  army  and  navy. 

The  site  at  Brest  destined  for  the  monument,  being  sufficiently  lofty  to 
be  seen  from  the  port,  requires  that  the  elevation  of  the  monument 
above  the  ground  level  should  not  exceed  thirty-six  feet,  the  little  figure 
at  the  base  serving,  so  to  speak,  as  a scale  of  proportion.  The  person 
charged  with  exhibiting  the  model  will  please  place  it  at  such  height  as 
to  bring  the  head  of  the  little  figure  on  a level  with  the  eye  of  the  spec- 
tator. 

The  artist  has  profited  by  the  subject  and  the  site  to  avoid,  what  is 
commonly  called,  a pedestal.  The  monument  has  no  other  base  but  that 
of  the  throne.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  pedestals  have  been  at  times 
criticized. 

The  Sieur  Houdon  has  imagined  that,  from  his  position,  he  might 
aspire  as  much  as  any  other  artist  to  the  honor  of  executing  this  monu- 
ment. For  sixteen  years  he  has  benefited  by  the  use  of  the  workshops 
and  furnaces  of  the  municipality  of  Paris;  he  has  used  this  advantage 
and  his  time  in  making  himself,  as  well  as  all  his  workmen,  capable  of 
the  execution  of  large  works  in  bronze.  He  has  already  made  several 
statues  of  this  material,  and  his  workmen  are  the  only  ones  now  remain- 
ing in  Paris,  those  employed  by  Messrs.  Bouchardon  and  Le  Moyne 
having  deceased. 

The  Sieur  Houdon  would  esteem  himself  happy  if  his  project  coin- 
cides with  the  ideas  of  Nos  Seigneurs  of  the  States  of  Brittany.  He  will 
receive  with  submission  the  suggestions  that  N.  S.  [Nos  Seigneurs]  may 
be  pleased  to  give  him. 

(From  the  printed  copy  in  the  National  Library  at  Paris.) 


Appendix  C 


Views  on  Competition  in  general , and  especially  as  to  the  one  for  a 
Statue  to  J . J . Rousseau . By  Houdon,  Sculptor  to  the  King  and 
of  the  Academy  of  Painting  and  Engraving . 

Competitions  are  useful,  even  absolutely  essential  for  young  people; 
they  excite  emulation  in  them  and  bestow  a certain  energy  and  courage 
leading  to  success:  but  for  artists  already  formed,  the  effect  is  entirely 
contrary.  Fearing  all  the  time  to  compromise  themselves,  they  end  by 
really  doing  so.  On  the  other  hand,  the  young  man  who  competes  and 
fails  to  win  the  prize,  is  consoled  by  the  hope  of  doing  better  and  win- 
ning next  time;  he  is  sustained  by  that  hope.  Not  being  known,  and 
still  possessing  youth,  his  failure  can  hardly  do  him  the  same  harm  as  it 
does  to  the  artist  already  formed,  who  no  longer  has  the  same  resources. 
A failure  to  him  is  compromising  to  his  reputation,  without  a hope  of 
regaining  it;  for  will  he  ever  find  a second  opportunity?  Will  not  public 
disfavor  follow  him?  His  fortune  will  diminish,  for  private  orders  will 
overlook  him  and  find  their  way  to  the  successful  artist;  for  one  must 
look  at  the  thing  reasonably  (from  the  standpoint  of  common  sense). 
Who  will  wish  the  services  of  an  established  artist  who  has  been  rejected? 

Then,  too,  in  competitive  trials  you  will  have  a great  many  young 
people  who,  having  nothing  to  lose  and  everything  to  gain,  are  only  too 
happy  to  enter  the  lists,  while  their  teachers  will  withdraw  for  exactly 
opposite  reasons.  It  will  be  answered,  what  difference  in  a public  mat- 
ter? Genius  is  the  appanage  of  youth;  by  this  means  we  will  open  ways 
to  it,  and  as  a result  we  shall  have  a better  work,  I am  in  accord  with 
the  first  idea,  but  not  with  the  second.  The  first  is  true  and  entirely  in 

296 


Appendix  C 297 

favor  of  the  young  people.  The  second  is  open  to  discussion  and  might 
prove  of  disadvantage  to  the  public  business. 

When  you  desire  to  erect  a public  monument,  two  things  are  needful : 
noble  conception— that  is  the  part  of  genius;  a perfect  execution— that 
belongs  to  practice.  Genius  conceives,  but  it  can  execute  only  after  prac- 
tice. I shall  not  enlarge  on  this  idea.  It  suffices,  I think,  to  point  it  out. 
I shall  therefore  pass  to  an  examination  of  the  methods  of  competition, 
and  I shall  commence  by  the  one  most  in  use— I allude  to  small  models. 
The  most  skilful  artist  will  be  the  one  to  make  the  poorest.  Accus- 
tomed to  conceive  and  execute  largely,  his  sketch  will  be  conceived  on 
those  lines,  and  to  the  eyes  even  perhaps  of  connoisseurs  the  sketch  of  a 
mediocre  artist,  possessing  less  merit  in  itself  but  more  worked  up  and 
finished  because  of  his  aptitude  in  it,  will  appear  superior.  Thus,  to 
bring  about  competition  that  will  result  satisfactorily,  which  is  really  to 
get  the  best  work,  there  remains  another  method  to  look  into.  This 
would  be  to  choose  six  or  eight  of  the  cleverest  sculptors  of  the  Capital, 
and  to  have  them  compete  with  full-sized  models ; one  could  feel  certain 
then  of  choosing  with  greater  reason.  But  objections  might  be  raised  to 
this  plan.  Would  artists  compete?  It  is  at  least  more  than  doubtful. 
If  they  did  enter,  however,  how  would  the  unsuccessful  ones  fare?  Their 
lost  time  must  be  paid  for,  their  outside  expenses  and,  more  than  this, 
their  models,  for  it  would  not  be  desirable  to  buy  an  excluded  work;  but 
even  if  all  that  were  to  be  paid,  the  National  Assembly  could  not  restore 
the  artist  his  lost  prestige,  and  nothing  could  console  him  for  being  in 
the  rejected  class.  Here  are  the  drawbacks  sufficiently  developed,  and  I 
will  sum  up;  but  in  doing  so  I shall  suggest  one  more  method  of  com- 
petition which,  it  seems  to  me,  would  be  most  worthy  of  the  Nation  and 
the  artists,  and  which  might  give  birth  to  the  sort  of  emulation  which 
leads  to  the  best  results  and  without  the  various  drawbacks  I have 
pointed  out  in  the  other  methods;  and  that  is,  to  take  the  whole  career. 
I explain  my  meaning:  The  artist  who  shall  labor  from  childhood,  who 
shall  have  produced  the  most  works,  whose  productions  are  most  noted, 


298 


Appendix  C 

that  one  should  be  chosen;  for  to  gain  a certain  degree  of  reputation, 
talent  is  necessary,  genius,  and  much  devotion.  Thus,  when  the  Nation 
seeks  for  a great  work,  let  those  charged  with  the  business  visit  the  va- 
rious studios,  and  let  the  style  of  the  works  and  the  talent  discovered  put 
them  in  the  way  of  deciding  with  clear  apprehension;  a poor  choice  will 
be  rarer  and  more  difficult  to  make. 

As  to  the  competition  for  a statue  of  J.  J.  Rousseau  decreed  by  the 
National  Assembly,  which  prompts  me  to  put  my  views  in  writing,  I can 
only  plead  one  thing  in  my  favor;  that  is,  that  the  likeness  of  this  great 
man  is  in  some  respects  my  property,  as  I am  the  only  one,  according  to 
general  opinion,  who  has  succeeded  in  making  a perfect  likeness  of  him; 
that  Rousseau  is  dead;  that  there  is  only  his  bust  to  go  by;  that  it  will  be 
made  use  of,  and  that  I shall  have  furnished  weapons  against  myself. 
Perhaps  I might  add  that  one  who,  without  planning  or  solicitation,  has 
been  selected  by  a free  people  to  trace  for  them  the  images  of  two  heroes, 
La  Fayette  and  Washington— who  is  executing  for  America  the  statue 
of  the  last-named— might  hope  the  same  consideration  from  his  native 
land,  which  became  free  also  through  the  labors  of  its  illustrious  repre- 
sentatives. Nothing  would  be  wanting  then  for  his  happiness,  and  he 
would  feel  assured  that  in  inscribing  his  name  on  the  statue  of  Jean- 
Jacques,  voted  by  free  Frenchmen,  he  would  be  obtaining  immortality. 


Appendix  D 


Copy  of  a Letter  from  M.  Houdon,  Sculptor , to  the  President  of 
the  Society  “Friends  of  the  Constitution.” 

Mr.  President: 

The  motives  for  my  conduct,  relative  to  the  competition  decided  upon 
by  the  Society  “Friends  of  the  Constitution,”  for  the  bust  of  Mirabeau, 
being  susceptible  of  a misconstruction,  I thought  it  owing  to  the  public, 
and  above  all  to  the  Society  over  which  you  preside  and  who  had  hon- 
ored me  by  its  first  choice,  to  state  precisely  my  exact  sentiments.  This 
is  what  I have  tried  to  do  in  a small  pamphlet  which  I beg  to  present. 
Not  being  willing,  however,  to  renounce  the  honor  of  placing  my  work 
within  the  sacred  precincts  of  the  Society,  I venture  to  hope  that  it  will 
allow  me  to  ask  its  acceptance  of  a plaster  cast  of  the  bust  of  Mirabeau; 
if  it  bears  resemblance,  and  if  any  merit  is  discerned  in  it,  it  is  because 
at  the  time  the  artist  executed  it  he  was  animated  by  a desire  to  respond 
to  the  confidence  the  Society  had  honored  him  with.  In  addressing  my- 
self to  you,  Mr.  President,  I could  not  choose  better  for  sympathizing 
with  my  point  of  view  and  a line  of  action  consistent  with  my  character. 

I have  the  honor  to  be 

Houdon. 

Paris,  5 June,  1791. 

(From  the  printed  copy  in  the  National  Library,  Paris.) 


299 


Appendix  E 


NOTICE  DES  OB  JETS  D’ART1 2 

qui  seront  vendus  apres  le  deces  de  M.  J.  A.  Houdon  statuaire,  chevalier 
de  la  Legion  d’honneur,  membre  de  FAcademie  des  Beaux  Arts  de  Fln- 
stitut  de  France,  professeur  emerite  de  Fficole  royale  des  Beaux  Arts, 
etc.,  etc.  Cette  vente  se  fera  le  lundi  15  decembre  1828  et  jours  suivants, 
dans  Fatelier  de  feu  M.  Houdon,  cour  de  la  Bibliotheque  du  Roi,  rue  de 
Richelieu,  de  midi  a 4 heures  de  relevee. 

L’ exposition  aura  lieu  le  dimanche  14  du  meme  mois. 

La  notice  se  distribue : 

Chez  $ F°urnel>  commissaire  priseur,  quai  des  orfevres,  No.  6 
( M.  Henri,  expert-appreciateur,  rue  de  Bondy,  No.  23. 

1828 

Imprimerie  d’Hippolyte  Tilliard,  rue  de  La  Harpe,  No  78. 

1.  Marbre  blanc.  Tete  de  Minerve  vue  de  profil;  ouvrage  en  bas- 
relief  et  destine  a etre  applique  sur  un  fond. 

2.  Bronze.  Diane  nue,  et  la  tete  un  peu  detournee,  se  livrant  a une 
course  legere;  la  deesse  tient  une  fleche  de  la  main  droite,  et  sa  main 
gauche  soutient  un  arc  de  petite  proportion. 

Cette  statue,  dont  la  ponderation  est  parfaite  et  qui,  par  sa  nudite  et 
le  caractere  gracieux  de  ses  formes,  representerait  peut-etre  mieux  une 
Venus  chasseresse,  offre  certainement  Fune  des  productions  les  plus 

1 Printed  from  the  only  known  copy  in  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale,  Paris,  Departement 
des  Imprimes,  V.  36,  n.  8°.  No.  2724,  20  pages.  The  introduction  is  omitted. 


3°° 


301 


Appendix  E 

remarquables  de  la  statuaire  moderne  et  merite  encore  plus  d’estime,  si 
l’on  considere  qu’elle  est  Tun  des  ouvrages  qui  ont  le  mieux  concouru  a 
rappeler  a 1’imitation  de  la  nature  et  de  F antique  a l’epoque  ou  il  fut 
execute. 

Cette  statue  de  grandeur  naturelle  et  d’une  belle  fonte  est  parfaite- 
ment  ciselee  et  reparee. 

3.  Platre  peint.  Empreinte  prise  sur  la  figure  precedente. 

4.  Bronze.  Jolie  copie  reduite  de  la  statue  precedente. 

5.  Platre  peint.  Empreinte  prise  sur  la  reduction,  qui  vient  d’etre 
decrite. 

6.  Cire.  Venus  et  Mars,  groupe  d’une  petitesse  extreme,  supporte 
par  une  console  formee  par  un  masque  humain. 

7.  Terre-cuite.  Une  esquisse  representant  Milon  de  Crotone  devore 
par  un  lion,  ouvrage  du  celebre  Falconet. 

8.  Terre-cuite.  Un  bas-relief  representant  la  reine  de  Saba  appor- 
tant  des  presents  a Salomon.  Cette  composition  est  celle  du  grand  prix 
de  sculpture  remporte  par  M.  Houdon  vers  1760. 

9.  Platre  peint.  Petit  modele  de  la  belle  statue  de  saint  Bruno,  exe- 
cutee  en  marbre  par  M.  Houdon  et  placee  a Rome  dans  l’eglise  des 
Chartreux. 

10.  Marbre  blanc.  Portrait  de  Louis  XIV,  vu  de  profil : bas  relief  de 
forme  ovale. 

11.  Marbre  blanc.  Buste  habille  de  Voltaire,  par  M.  Houdon. 

12.  Marbre  blanc.  Buste  de  Voltaire,  sur  socle  en  marbre  veine,  par 
M.  Houdon. 

13.  Carton  bronze.  Statue  assise  de  Voltaire,  maquette  qui  a servi 
dans  la  ceremonie  de  la  translation  des  cendres  de  ce  grand  homme  au 
Pantheon  frangais. 

14.  Platre.  Modele  reduit  de  la  statue  de  Voltaire  par  M.  Houdon, 
qui  etait  placee  au  Pantheon  frangais. 


3 02 


Appendix  E 

15.  Platre.  Masque  moule  sur  la  visage  de  J.  J.  Rousseau  peu 
d’heures  apres  sa  mort;  cette  precieuse  empreinte  qui  est  unique  a ete 
fait  par  M.  Houdon,  sur  l’invitation  de  feu  M.  le  Comte  de  Girardin 
chez  lequel  ce  philosophe  mourut  le  3 juillet  1778.  (Sur  ce  platre,  voyez 
la  Biographic  universelle,  article  Rousseau.) 

1 6.  Platre  peint.  Buste  de  J.  J.  d’Alembert,  mort  le  29  octobre  1783. 

17.  Terre-cuite.  Buste  de  Diderot,  mort  le  30  juillet  1784. 

18.  Buste  du  prince  Henri  de  Prusse. 

19.  Platre.  Buste  de  Bailly,  president  de  l’Assemblee  Constituante. 

20.  Platre.  Buste  de  Paul  John,  general  americain. 

21.  Platre  colore.  Buste  de  J.  F.  Pilatre  de  Rosier,  physicien,  tue 
pres  de  Boulogne,  le  15  juin  1785. 

22.  Platre.  Buste  de  C.  Gluck,  mort  le  15  novembre  1787. 

23.  Platre  colore.  Buste  de  P.  J.  B.  Gerbier,  avocat-general,  mort  le 
26  mars  1788. 

24.  Platre.  Buste  de  G.  L.  L.,  comte  de  Bulfon,  mort  le  16  avril 
1788. 

25.  Platre  colore.  Buste  du  president  Dupaty,  mort  le  17  septembre 
1788. 

26.  Platre  bronze.  Buste  du  docteur  Tronchin. 

27.  Terre-cuite.  Buste  de  B.  Francklin,  mort  le  17  avril,  1790. 

28.  Platre.  Buste  de  G.-A.-H.,  comte  de  Guibert,  membre  de  l’Aca- 
demie  des  Sciences,  mort  vers  1790. 

29.  Terre-cuite.  Buste  de  Riquetti  (H.-G.),  comte  de  Mirabeau, 
mort  le  2 avril  1791. 

30.  Platre.  Buste  de  1’abbe  Barthelemy,  mort  le  30  avril  1795. 

31.  Platre  peint.  Buste  de  Joseph  Balsamo,  dit  Cagliostro,  mort  au 
chateau  de  Saint-Leon  en  1795. 

32.  Marbre  blanc.  Buste  de  Hue  de  Miromenil,  garde  des  Sceaux, 
mort  le  6 juillet  1796. 

33.  Platre.  Buste  de  M.  de  Nicolai,  premier  president  de  la  cour  des 
Aides. 


Appendix  E 303 

34.  Platre.  Masque  de  la  statue  de  Joubert,  general  en  chef  de  Tar- 
mee  frangaise  en  Italie,  tue  a la  bataille  de  Novi  en  1799. 

35.  Platre.  Buste  de  Washington,  general  en  chef  des  armees  ameri- 
caines  pendant  la  guerre  de  l’independance. 

36.  Platre.  Buste  de  J.  Lalande,  astronome,  mort  le  4 avril  1807. 

37.  Marbre  blanc.  Buste  de  M.  Lenoir,  ancien  lieutenant  de  police, 
mort  en  1807. 

38.  Platre  peint.  Portrait  en  bas-relief  de  J.  M.  Montgolfier,  meca- 
nicien,  l’un  des  inventeurs  des  aerostats,  mort  le  26  juin  1810. 

39.  Terre-cuite.  Buste  de  M.  J.  de  Chenier,  membre  de  l’lnstitut, 
mort  le  10  janvier  18 1 1. 

40.  Terre-cuite.  Buste  de  l’imperatrice  Josephine,  sur  piedouche  en 
marbre  veine. 

41.  Platre.  Buste  de  M.  Barlow,  ministre  des  Etats-Unis,  pres  la 
cour  de  France;  auteur  du  poeme  de  “La  Colombiade,”  etc. 

42.  Platre.  Buste  de  feu  M.  le  marechal  Ney,  prince  de  la  Moskowa. 

43.  Terre-cuite.  Buste  en  hermes  a diademe  de  Napoleon  Bona- 
parte, modele  a S.  Cloud  en  1806.  Ce  buste,  pour  lequel  l’artiste  recut 
beaucoup  de  seances,  passe  avec  raison  pour  celui  de  tous  les  portraits  de 
Napoleon  ou  sa  physionomie  est  rendue  avec  le  plus  de  verite. 

44.  Terre-cuite.  Buste  de  Napoleon  en  costume  militaire. 

45.  Platre.  Buste  de  Mme-  la  comtesse  Regnauld  de  S.  Jean  d’An- 
gely. 

46.  Platre.  Masque  de  feu  M.  le  comte  Boissy  d’Anglas,  pair  de 
France  et  membre  de  l’lnstitut.  Ce  masque  a ete  moule  pendant  la  vie 
de  ce  personnage. 

47.  Platre.  Buste  de  Jefferson,  ancien  president  de  la  republique  des 
Etats-Unis. 

48.  Platre.  Buste  de  feu  Larive,  tragedien  celebre. 

49.  Marbre  blanc.  Buste  de  M.  Camus-Greneville,  ancien  magistrat. 

50.  Platre.  Buste  de  R.  Fulton,  inventeur  des  bateaux  a vapeur. 

51.  Marbre  blanc.  Buste  de  M.  le  general  Lafayette,  en  costume  de 


3°  4 


Appendix  E 


commandant  de  la  garde  nationale  de  Paris:  ce  buste,  vote  en  1791  par 
la  commune  de  Paris,  a eprouve  en  1793,  une  mutilation  qui  a ete  re- 
paree. 


52.  Terre-cuite.  Buste  de  Mrae- , les  cheveux  releves  derriere  la 

tete,  et  le  sein  et  les  epaules  enveloppes  d’une  draperie. 

53.  Platre.  Buste  de  M.  le  marechal  Soult,  due  de  Dalmatie. 

Platre.  Buste  de  feu  M.  Moitte,  statuaire. 

Platre.  Buste  de  Mme-  la  princesse  de  Salm. 

Platre.  Portrait  a mi-corps  de  Mme-  de  Serilly. 

Terre-cuite.  Buste  de  Mme-  de  Vermenon. 

Platre.  Buste  de  Mmc-  de  Berwick. 

Marbre  blanc.  Buste  de  jeune  homme  couronne  de  myrte. 

Platre  colore.  Buste  de  feu  M1Ie-  de  Tarente,  execute  apres  sa 


54- 

55- 
56. 

57- 

58. 

59- 

bo. 


mort. 


61.  Terre-cuite.  Buste  d’une  jeune  femme  les  cheveux  nones  derriere 
la  tete. 

62.  Marbre  blanc.  Copie  reduite  de  “la  Frileuse”  par  M.  Houdon. 

63.  Marbre  blanc.  Buste  de  jeune  femme,  les  cheveux  attaches  der- 
riere la  tete : cette  jolie  tete  d’etude  presente  le  caractere  de  la  douceur. 

64.  Platre.  Le  grand  ficorche,  epreuve  peinte  a 1’huile  et  offrant  les 
couleurs  des  muscles,  vines  et  tendons. 

65.  Platre.  Le  moule  de  la  figure  precedente.  L’acquisition  de  ce 
moule  conferera  la  propriete  de  la  figure,  1’une  des  plus  estimees  de  notre 
ecole. 

66.  Platre.  Tete  de  l’ficorche  peinte  a l’huile. 

67.  Marbre  blanc.  Deux  petits  tetes  d’enfants,  dont  Tune  pleure  et 
l’autre  rit. 

68.  Marbre  blanc.  Un  oiseau  mort  et  les  pattes  attachees  a un  clou. 

69.  Un  grand  nombre  de  bustes,  figurines  et  esquisses,  en  terre-cuite  et 
en  platre,  qui  seront  divises  par  lots. 

70.  Pastel.  Portrait  du  marechal  de  Saxe,  attribue  a Latour. 

71.  Un  petit  nombre  de  tableaux  et  de  gravures. 


Appendix  E 305 

72.  Cliche  du  prix  de  vertu.  Idem,  “le  naissance  du  Dauphin,”  par 
Duvivier.  Idem,  “aux  braves  armees,”  etc.,  d’apres  Droz. 

73.  Un  grand  nombre  de  masque  de  personnages  celebres  le  plupart 
moules  de  leur  vivant,  tels  que  ceux  de  M.  Moitte,  statuaire ; M.  Arnaud, 
de  l’Academie  Frangaise,  etc. 

74.  Des  objets  ornis  seront  appeles  et  vendus  sous  ce  numero. 


Appendix  F 


CATALOGUE  OF  HOUDON’S  WORKS 

Statues  and  Monuments 

Apollo. 

Bronze.  “For  Girardot  de  Marigny.”  Collection  of  Leopold 
Goldschmidt,  Paris. 

Baigneuse  (A  Bather). 

Gypsum.  Salon,  1775.  “To  be  executed  in  marble.” 

Marble.  In  possession  of  Benjamin  Altman,  New  York. 
Bartholomews  (Saint  Bartholomew). 

Stone,  18  feet  high.  For  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Cross  in  Orleans. 
Bruno  (Saint). 

Statue,  marble.  Height,  9^2  feet.  In  the  Church  of  St.  Mary  of 
the  Angels,  Rome. 

Catharine  (Saint). 

Stone.  For  Church  of  the  Holy  Cross  in  Orleans. 

Ceres. 

Stone.  Height,  6 feet.  For  the  Comte  d’Artois. 

Charles  the  Great  (Charlemagne). 

Gilded  cardboard,  life  size,  for  the  “Fete-Dieu”  at  Versailles. 
Cicero. 

Plaster.  Salon,  1808. 

Colossal  marble.  Ordered  by  Napoleon  for  the  Senate  Chamber. 
Diana. 

1.  Marble.  For  the  Empress  of  Russia.  In  the  Hermitage,  St. 
Petersburg. 


306 


3°7 


Appendix  F 

2.  Bronze.  Purchased  by  the  French  government,  at  the  sale  of 
Houdon’s  collection  in  1828,  for  4000  francs.  In  the  Louvre. 

3.  Bronze.  Salon,  1783.  Made  for  Girardot  de  Marigny;  after- 
ward owned  by  Lord  Hertford,  and  subsequently  by  Charles  T. 
Yerkes,  New  York. 

4.  Bronze.  In  Museum  at  Tours. 

L’Ecorche. 

1.  Plaster.  At  ficole  des  Beaux  Arts,  Paris. 

2.  Plaster.  At  Ecole  des  Beaux  Arts,  Paris. 

3.  Bronze.  At  Ecole  des  Beaux  Arts,  Paris. 

Ennery. 

Mortuary  monument  to  the  Comte  d’Ennery.  Height,  6 feet; 
width,  7 feet.  Group  of  three  figures  and  a bust,  marble.  For- 
merly at  Pontoise. 

Fountain. 

Group  of  two  figures,  life  size,  one  of  marble,  the  other  in  lead 
painted  black,  representing  a negress.  Salon,  1783.  Destroyed 
in  French  Revolution. 

La  Frileuse,  “Shivering  One,”  or  “Winter.” 

Marble.  Salon,  1783.  In  the  Museum  at  Montpellier. 

Bronze.  Salon,  1791. 

Marble.  Salon,  1796. 

Galitzin. 

Mortuary  monuments  to  the  two  Princes  Galitzin.  Salon,  1773. 
In  the  Church  of  Notre  Dame  de  Kazan  at  Moscow. 

Model.  Salon,  1777.  In  the  Louvre. 

John  the  Baptist. 

Gypsum.  In  the  Church  of  St.  Mary  of  the  Angels,  Rome. 

Head  in  plaster.  Museum  of  Gotha. 


Appendix  F 


3°S 

Joubert,  General. 

Statue,  marble.  Salon,  1812. 

Statuette.  Reduction  for  china  factory  at  Sevres. 

Minerva. 

Gilded  cardboard.  For  Versailles  Theatre. 

Morpheus. 

Statue,  gypsum.  Life  size.  Salon,  1771.  In  Museum  at  Gotha. 
Statuette.  Reduction  of  the  former.  Marble.  Height,  60  inches; 
length,  66  inches.  Exhibited  in  1777.  In  the  Louvre. 

A Naiad. 

Model  for  a fountain  in  a garden. 

Napoleon. 

Bronze.  Height,  18  feet;  or,  according  to  others,  15  feet.  Or- 
dered for  the  Column  of  Boulogne.  In  1817  melted  down  and 
used  in  casting  statue  of  Henry  IV  by  Lemot. 

Peter  (Saint). 

Stone.  Height,  18  feet.  For  Church  of  the  Holy  Cross  in  Orleans. 

Philosophy  (Saint  Scholastique) . 

Marble,  7 J4  feet  high.  Intended  for  the  Church  of  the  Invalides. 
In  1793  changed  to  a statue  of  Philosophy  and  placed  in  the  Hall 
of  the  Convention. 

Saxe-Gotha,  Ducal  Family  of. 

Mortuary  monument  (model)  to  the  Duchess  Louise  Dorothea. 
Salon,  1775. 

Stephen  (Saint). 

Stone,  18  feet  high.  For  a church  in  Orleans. 

Summer  (in  the  likeness  of  a young  maid). 

Marble.  In  the  Museum  at  Montpellier. 

Tourville,  Marshal. 

Marble.  Salon,  1781.  At  Versailles. 


Appendix  F 309 

A Vestal. 

Statue,  marble,  6 feet  in  height.  1787. 

Voltaire. 

Marble,  life  size.  Seated.  Salon,  1781.  In  foyer  of  Theatre- 
Frangais. 

Terra-cotta.  Smaller  than  life.  Museum  at  Montpellier. 

Marble,  life  size.  Standing.  Salon,  1812.  By  Voltaire’s  tomb  in 
the  Pantheon. 

Washington. 

Marble,  life  size.  1788.  In  the  Capitol  at  Richmond. 


Statuettes 

La  Petite  Frileuse. 

Bronze,  cast  from  original  sketch:  Salon,  1793.  In  the  Louvre. 
Moliere. 

Seated  figure.  “In  Museum  at  Orleans”  (Montaiglon) . 

Priest  of  the  Lupercal  Feast. 

Bronze;  height,  31  inches. 

Sibylle. 

Vestal. 

Bronze.  To  serve  as  night  lamp.  1777. 

Voltaire. 

From  statue  at  Theatre-Frangais,  bearing  Houdon’s  seal.  In  the 
Louvre. 


Busts  of  Men 

Alembert,  d’. 

Marble.  1782.  In  Hermitage  at  St.  Petersburg. 
Alexander  the  Great. 

Marble.  Salon,  1783.  “For  the  King  of  Poland.” 
Arlandes,  d’. 


3io 


Appendix  F 


Aubert,  Abbe. 

Marble.  In  the  Louvre. 

Auvergne,  d’  (Director  of  the  Opera). 

Marble. 

Bailly  (de  Sylvain),  Mayor  of  Paris. 

Salon,  1791.  Destroyed  August  10,  1792. 

Barlow,  Joel,  United  States  Minister  to  France. 

Marble.  Salon,  1804.  Owned  by  H.  P.  Chambers,  Washington,  Pa. 
Plaster.  In  Pennsylvania  Academy  of  Fine  Arts,  Philadelphia. 
Plaster.  In  National  Academy  of  Design,  New  York. 

Barnave. 

Bronzed  terra-cotta. 

Barthelemy,  J.  J.,  author  of  “Anacharsis.” 

Salon,  1795. 

Marble.  Salon,  1802. 

Bignon,  Mayor  of  Paris. 

Salon,  1771.  In  Museum  of  Montpellier. 

Bire,  de. 

Marble.  Salon,  1785. 

Boissy  d’Anglas,  Comte. 

Marble.  Salon,  1812. 

Boucquier. 

Terra-cotta. 

Boufflers,  de. 

Gypsum.  Salon,  1789. 

Bouille,  Marquis  de. 

Marble.  Salon,  1787. 

Buffon,  de. 

Marble.  Ordered  by  the  Empress  of  Russia.  Salon,  1783. 
Marble.  Salon,  1789.  In  the  Louvre. 

Plaster.  In  the  Museum  at  Dijon. 


Appendix  F 31 1 

Cagliostro  (named  Joseph  Balsamo). 

Marble.  Musee  at  Aix. 

Gypsum.  Owned  by  M.  Storreli,  who  married  the  granddaughter 
of  Maitre  Thelonier,  advocate  of  Cagliostro,  to  whom  Cagliostro 
gave  the  bust. 

Camus-Greneville,  Magistrate. 

Marble.  Houdon  sale,  1828  ; No.  49. 

Capperonnier. 

Terra-cotta. 

Caumartin,  de,  Mayor. 

Marble.  Salon,  1779. 

Charles  IX. 

Gypsum.  Salon,  1777. 

Charles  (Aeronaut). 

Charriere. 

Terra-cotta,  on  marble  pedestal.  Musee  de  Neufchatel. 

Chenier,  Marie-Joseph,  poet  and  member  of  the  Institute. 

Terra-cotta.  Purchased  at  Walferdin  sale  by  P.  Lacroix  for 
9000  francs. 

Colbert. 

Gypsum.  1787. 

Colin  d’Harleville. 

Marble.  Salon,  1806. 

CONDORCET. 

Marble.  Salon,  1785.  In  American  Philosophical  Society,  Phila- 
delphia. 

Conty,  Prince  of. 

Gypsum. 

CoURLEVAN,  DE. 

Diderot. 

Marble.  Salon,  1771. 

Terra-cotta.  In  the  Louvre. 


Appendix  F 


312 

Duclos. 

Dumouriez,  General. 

Marble.  Formerly  in  Palais  Royal  and  thought  to  have  been  de- 
stroyed in  1848,  but  recently  unearthed  and  now  at  Versailles. 
Plaster.  In  Museum  at  Angers. 

Duquesnoy. 

Marble.  Signed,  “Houdon.”  In  the  Louvre. 

Du  Paty. 

Salon,  1779. 

Franklin,  Benjamin. 

Terra-cotta.  Salon,  1779.  Houdon’s  sale,  1828;  No.  27.  In  the 
Louvre. 

Marble.  In  the  Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art,  New  York. 

Franquieres,  de. 

Marble. 

Fulton,  Robert. 

Marble.  Salon,  1804. 

Plaster.  Museum  of  Marine,  Paris. 

Terra-cotta.  In  the  National  Academy  of  Design,  New  York  City. 

Gerbier  (Advocate). 

Gypsum.  Salon,  1781. 

Gluck. 

1.  Marble.  Salon,  1777.  Formerly  in  Opera  House,  Paris;  de- 
stroyed by  fire  in  1873. 

2.  Gypsum.  Berlin  Museum. 

3.  Terra-cotta.  Saxe-Gotha. 

Guibert. 

Gypsum. 

Harleville,  Colin  d\ 

Plaster.  In  Museum  at  Chartres. 


Appendix  F 


3T3 


Haudry. 

Gypsum.  In  Museum  at  Orleans. 

Jefferson,  Thomas. 

Plaster.  Salon,  1789.  In  New  York  Historical  Society. 

Plaster.  In  American  Philosophical  Society,  Philadelphia. 

Jones,  John  Paul. 

Terra-cotta.  Salon,  1781.  In  Pennsylvania  Academy  of  the  Fine 


Arts,  Philadelphia. 
Irvine. 

Presented  by  Jones  to  General  William 

JOUBERT. 

Marble.  Salon,  1812. 
Laborde,  de. 

Marble. 

In  Versailles  Museum. 

La  Fayette,  Marquis  de. 
Marble.  Salon,  1787. 
Marble.  Salon,  1791. 
La  Fontaine. 

In  the  Capitol  at  Richmond,  Va. 
At  Versailles. 

Marble.  Salon,  1783. 
Lalande,  de. 

Gypsum. 

Model  made  in  1781. 

La  Rive,  de. 

Marble.  Salon,  1783. 

In  Theatre-Frangais. 

Lavoisier. 

Terra-cotta.  Bearing  the  seal  of  Houdon.  In  the  Louvre. 
Le  Noir. 

Marble.  Salon,  1785. 

Le  Pelletier  de  Mortfontaine. 

Plaster.  Salon,  1785. 

Le  Pelletier  de  Saint-Fargeau. 

Signed  by  Houdon. 


Appendix  F 


31 4 

Louis  XVI. 

Marble.  In  Museum  at  Versailles. 

Louis  (Surgeon). 

Marble.  Salon,  1783. 

Malterres. 

Terra-cotta. 

Mecklenburg-Schwerin,  Prince  of. 

Marble.  Salon,  1783. 

Meianes,  Marquis  of. 

Marble. 

Mellon. 

Terra-cotta. 

Mentelle. 

Gypsum. 

Mirabeau. 

Marble.  Exhibited  by  Houdon,  Year  IX.  In  the  Louvre. 

A bust,  without  indication  as  to  material,  in  Salon  of  1791. 

A terra-cotta  bust  at  Houdon’s  sale,  1795,  No.  100.  Costumed  as 
Deputy.  In  Museum  at  Angers. 

Ditto,  at  Houdon’s  sale  of  1828,  No.  29;  purchased  by  Walferdin. 
Transferred  to  the  Louvre  in  1880. 

Miromenil,  Marquis  de. 

Marble.  Salon,  1775.  Houdon  sale,  1828;  No.  32. 

Plaster  bronzed.  In  Museum  at  Orleans. 

Moitte. 

Gypsum. 

Moliere. 

Terra-cotta.  Salon,  1779. 

Marble.  In  the  foyer  of  the  Theatre-Francais. 

Plaster.  Ducal  Museum  at  Gotha. 


Appendix  F 315 

Montelle,  Member  of  the  Institute. 

Marble.  Salon,  1802. 

Napoleon. 

Marble.  As  First  Consul. 

Marble.  Salon,  1806. 

Marble.  Salon,  1808.  First  at  Tuileries;  now  in  Museum  at  Ver- 
sailles. 

Terra-cotta.  Houdon  sale,  1828;  No.  43.  In  the  Museum  at 
Dijon. 

Necker. 

Marble.  Salon,  1791.  Placed  in  Hotel  de  Ville.  Destroyed 
August  10,  1792. 

Negerin. 

Gypsum. 

Ney,  Marshal. 

Marble.  Salon,  1804.  Formerly  at  Tuileries;  destroyed  in  1870. 
Gypsum.  In  Versailles  Museum. 

Nicolai,  de. 

Marble.  Salon,  1779. 

Gypsum. 

Nivernais,  Due  DE. 

Plaster  bronzed.  In  Museum  at  Besancon. 

Pajou. 

Terra-cotta.  Signed  by  Houdon. 

Palissot. 

Gypsum. 

Terra-cotta.  In  reading-room,  Mazarin  Library. 

Pastoret. 

Terra-cotta.  Salon,  1796. 

Praslin,  Due  DE. 

Marble.  Salon,  1781. 

Preville  (Actor). 

Bronze.  In  foyer  of  Theatre-Frangais. 


316  Appendix  F 

Provence,  Comte  de,  afterward  Louis  XVIII. 

Marble.  Salon,  1777. 

Prussia,  Prince  Henry  of. 

Gypsum.  Salon,  1785. 

Marble.  “For  the  King.”  Salon,  1787. 

Bronze.  Salon,  1789.  At  Palace  in  Berlin. 

Quesnay,  Physician. 

Gypsum.  Salon,  1781. 

Rosier,  Pilatre  de. 

Gypsum.  Salon,  1789.  Houdon’s  sale,  1828;  No.  21. 

Rousseau,  J.-J. 

Terra-cotta.  Salon,  1779.  “Appartient  a M.  le  Marquis  de  Ge- 
rardin.” 

Bronze.  In  the  Louvre.  Acquired  in  1838. 

Gypsum  (bronzed).  In  the  Museum  of  Gotha. 

Marble.  In  Girard  College,  Philadelphia. 

Terra-cotta.  In  Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art,  New  York. 

Russia,  Emperor  of  (Alexander). 

Salon,  1814. 

Sacchini. 

Soltikoff,  General. 

Marble.  Salon,  1783. 

Soltikoff,  Count,  son  of  the  General. 

Marble.  Salon,  1783. 

Soult,  Marshal. 

Marble. 

SUFFREN,  BaILLY  DE. 

Marble.  Salon,  1787.  For  the  Dutch  East  India  Company,  De- 
partment of  Zealand.  In  the  Mauritshuis  Museum  at  The 
Hague. 

Plaster.  Museum  at  Aix. 

Sweden,  King  of  (Gustave  III). 

Gypsum.  Salon,  1785. 


Appendix  F 


317 


Tronchin  (Physician). 

Marble.  Salon,  1781. 

Turgot. 

1.  Marble.  Salon,  1777. 

2.  Plaster.  In  the  American  Philosophical  Society,  Philadelphia. 
Valbelle,  de. 

Gypsum. 

VlCTINGHOFF,  BARON  LE. 

Plaster.  Salon,  1777. 

Voltaire. 

Plaster.  With  wig  and  drapery.  1778.  In  foyer  of  Theatre- 
Frangais. 

Marble.  Without  wig,  in  antique  style.  Salon,  1779.  In  Hermi- 
tage at  St.  Petersburg. 

Bronze.  Without  wig,  in  antique  style.  In  the  Louvre. 
Terra-cotta.  With  wig  and  coat  and  vest.  In  Metropolitan  Mu- 
seum of  Art,  New  York. 

Wailly,  de. 

Terra-cotta. 

Washington. 

Terra-cotta.  1785.  Houdon’s  sale,  1828  ; No.  35.  In  the  Louvre. 
Marble.  Salon,  1787. 

WlETINGHOFF. 

Gypsum.  1777. 

Busts  of  Women 

Adelaide,  Mme.,  daughter  of  Louis  XV. 

Marble.  Salon,  1777. 

Anspach,  Countess  of. 

Marble.  Salon,  1802. 

Arnould,  Sophie. 

Marble.  In  the  role  of  “Iphigenia.”  Salon,  1775.  Formerly  in 
collection  of  Sir  Richard  Wallace. 


Appendix  F 


318 

Berwick,  Mme.  de. 

Gypsum. 

Bignon,  Mme. 

Salon,  1771. 

Bocquet,  Mlle. 

Terra-cotta.  Salon,  1777. 

Cayla,  Mme.  la  Comtesse  de. 

Marble.  Salon,  1775. 

Charlier,  Mme. 

Terra-cotta. 

Cotheron,  Mlle.  de. 

Marble. 

Daschkau,  Princess,  Directress  of  the  Academy  of  Sciences  of  St. 
Petersburg. 

Plaster.  Salon,  1781. 

Bronze.  Salon,  1783. 

“Houdon,  the  statuary,  occupied  a good  deal  of  my  time,  to 
whom,  at  my  daughter’s  desire,  I sat  for  my  bust  in  bronze  as  large 
as  life.”  “Memoirs  of  the  Princess  Daschkau,”  Vol.  I,  p.  225. 
His,  Mme.  de. 

Marble.  Salon,  1775. 

Houdon,  Mme.,  wife  of  the  sculptor. 

Plaster.  Salon,  1787.  In  the  Louvre. 

Houze,  Baronne  de  la. 

Salon,  1775. 

Marble.  Salon,  1777. 

Jaucourt,  Mme.  la  Comtesse  de. 

Marble.  Salon,  1777. 

Josephine. 

Marble.  Salon,  1806. 

Marble.  Salon,  1808.  Formerly  in  the  Tuileries,  now  in  the  Mu- 
seum at  Versailles. 

Terra-cotta.  Houdon  sale,  1828;  No.  40. 


Appendix  F 


3T9 

Lise,  The  Little. 

Marble. 

Mailly,  Mme.  de. 

Terra-cotta.  Salon,  1771. 

Mecklenburg-Schwerin,  Princess  of. 

Marble.  Salon,  1783. 

Odeoud,  Mlle. 

Marble.  “For  the  Marquis  de  Marigny.”  Salon,  1781. 

Olivier,  Mlle. 

Gypsum.  Salon,  1789. 

Petit,  Mme. 

Terra-cotta. 

Provence,  Wife  of  the  Comte  de. 

Marble.  Salon,  1777. 

Raucourt,  Mlle.,  celebrated  opera-singer. 

Marble. 

Regnauld,  Comtesse. 

Gypsum. 

Robert,  Mlle.,  daughter  of  the  painter. 

Marble.  Salon,  1783. 

Rode,  Mme. 

Marble.  Salon,  1802. 

Russia,  Empress  of  (Catharine  II). 

Marble.  Larger  than  life  size.  Salon,  1773. 

Salm,  Princess. 

Gypsum. 

Serilly,  Mme.  de. 

Plaster.  Salon,  1781. 

Marble.  Signed,  “Houdon  F 1782.”  In  collection  of  Sir  Richard 
Wallace,  Hertford  House,  London. 

Servat,  Mlle. 

Marble. 


Appendix  F 


Servat,  Mme. 

Marble.  Salon,  1777. 

Tarente,  Mlle.  “Executed  after  death.” 

Gypsum. 

Thenard,  Marie  Madeline  Perrin,  called. 

Extract  from  “Ma  Vie  au  Theatre,”  by  Jenny  Thenard,  of  the  Co- 
medie-Frangaise  (p.  13)  : “She,  my  great-grandmother,  desired  to 
be  interred  with  the  head  of  a sketch  of  a statuette,  by  Houdon, 
representing  her  in  the  character  of  Merope.  When  she  was  dis- 
interred, in  1877,  at  the  death  of  my  grandmother,  the  little  head 
by  Houdon  was  found  in  her  coffin.  I gave  this  statuette  to  the 
Carnavalet  Museum.” 

Vermenon,  Mme.  de. 

Marble. 

Vestal. 

Marble.  Signed,  “Houdon  F 1788.”  In  the  Louvre. 

Victoire,  Mme.,  daughter  of  Louis  XV. 

Marble.  Salon,  1777.  Signed,  “A.  Houdon  Fecit  1777.”  In 
Wallace  collection,  Hertford  House,  London. 

Busts  of  Children 

Brongniart,  Alexandre. 

Marble.  Salon,  1777. 

Terra-cotta.  In  the  Louvre. 

Brongniart,  Louise. 

Marble.  Salon,  1777. 

Terra-cotta.  Signed,  “Houdon  1777.”  In  the  Louvre. 

Marble.  Owned  by  B.  Altman,  New  York. 

Espagne,  d\ 

Terra-cotta. 


321 


Appendix  F 

Houdon,  Anne-Ange,  second  daughter  of  the  sculptor. 

Terra-cotta.  With  the  seal  of  Houdon’s  studio.  In  the  Louvre. 
Houdon,  Claudine,  third  and  youngest  daughter  of  the  sculptor. 

Plaster.  With  the  seal  of  Houdon’s  studio.  Sold  at  Decourcelle 
sale,  Paris,  to  M.  Robert  Linzeler. 

Houdon,  Sabine,  eldest  daughter  of  the  sculptor. 

Original  plaster.  In  the  Louvre. 

Infant’s  Head.  Aged  ten  months. 

Marble.  Salon,  1789. 

Noailles,  de. 

Ideal  Heads 

Two  Angels,  supporting  the  French  Coat  of  Arms.  Formerly  in  the 
Theatre  at  Versailles. 

Saint  Bartholomew. 

Bust.  Marble.  For  Salon,  Year  X. 

Belisarius. 

Bust.  Salon,  1773. 

Mars  and  Venus. 

Small  group.  Wax.  Houdon  sale,  1828;  No.  6. 

Medusa.  Head  after  the  antique. 

Salon,  1775. 

Minerva. 

Bust.  Stone.  In  the  courtyard  of  the  Palace  of  the  Institute. 

The  Nest-robbers. 

Signed,  “Houdon.”  Sale  held  December  23,  1845  ; No.  98. 

Medallions 

Alexander. 

Salon,  1771. 

Minerva. 

Marble  bas-relief.  Head  in  profile.  Salon,  1777. 


322  Appendix  F 

Miromenil,  Mme.  de. 

Montgolfier  (Balloonists). 

Portraits  of  Joseph  and  Etienne  Montgolfier  in  profile,  accolated. 
Plaster.  In  the  Trocadero  Museum  in  Paris. 

Saxe-Gotha,  Ducal  Family  of. 

Gypsum,  bronzed.  Salon,  1773. 

Frederick  III. 

Ernest  Louis. 

Marie  Charlotte  of  Saxe-Meiningen,  consort  of  the  former. 
Frederike  Luise,  sister  of  Duke  Ernest  Louis. 

Bas-reliefs 

Christ  Giving  Keys  to  Saint  Peter. 

For  Church  of  St.  Genevieve,  afterward  the  Pantheon.  Statue  de- 
stroyed or  taken  away  in  1792. 

Dead  Thrush. 

Marble.  In  Houdon’ s sale  of  1828,  No.  68.  Owned  by  M.  le 
Comte  Gabriel  de  Castries,  Paris. 

“Hope  and  Religion.” 

Stone.  Ordered  for  St.  Cloud. 

Louis  XIV. 

Marble  bas-relief  of  oval  form.  Head  in  profile.  Houdon  sale, 
1828 ; No.  10. 

Sheba  and  Solomon. 

Terra-cotta.  Houdon  won  the  “Prix  de  Rome”  with  this  in  1761. 

Masks 

Arnauld,  Member  of  the  French  Academy. 

Made  from  life. 

Boissy  d’Anglas,  Comte. 

Life-mask.  Houdon  sale,  1828;  No.  46. 


Appendix  F 


323 


Crequy,  Marquise  de. 

Mask  after  death. 

Jefferson. 

Life-mask. 

Joubert,  General. 

Houdon  sale,  1828  ; No.  34. 

Mirabeau. 

Moulded  after  death. 

Moitte. 

Moulded  from  life. 

Rousseau. 

Moulded  after  death.  Houdon  sale,  1828  ; No.  15. 

Washington. 

Moulded  from  life.  Houdon  sale,  1828;  doubtless  under  No.  73. 
Owned  by  J.  Pierpont  Morgan. 


Appendix  G 


LIST  OF  AUTHORITIES  USED  IN  THE 
PREPARATION  OF  THIS  WORK 

Quatremere  de  Quincy’s  Notice  Historique  sur  la  Vie  et  les  Ouvrages  de 
M.  Houdon.  1829. 

Montaiglon  et  Duplessis’s  Houdon,  sa  Vie  et  ses  Ouvrages.  1855. 
Delerot  et  Legrelle,  Memoire  sur  la  Vie  et  l’CEuvre  de  J.  A.  Houdon. 
1857. 

Dierks’s  Houdon’s  Leben  und  Werke.  1887. 

Terrade’s  Autour  de  la  Statue  de  Jean  Houdon.  1892. 

Biographie  Universelle.  1858. 

New  Biographie  Generate.  1861. 

Jal’s  Dictionnaire  Critique  de  Biographie  et  d’Histoire.  1872. 

Lami’s  Dictionnaire  des  Sculpteurs  de  l’Ecole  Frangaise.  1910. 

Gazette  des  Beaux  Arts. 

Paul  Vitry  in  Les  Arts  and  in  La  Revue  de  l’Art. 

Nouvelles  Archives  de  l’Art  Frangais. 

Claude  de  Phillips  in  London  Art  Journal. 

Bachaumont’s  Memoires  Secrets  pour  servir  a l’Histoire  de  la  Republique 
des  Lettres  en  France.  1762-1787.  36  volumes. 

Correspondance  Secrete  Politique  et  Litteraire.  18  volumes. 
Desnoiresterres’s  Voltaire  et  la  Societe  au  XVIII  Siecle.  Part  8.  1876. 
Desnoiresterres’s  Iconographie  Voltairienne.  1879. 

Martin-Choisi’s  Account  of  the  Inauguration  of  a Statue  of  Voltaire  at 
Montpellier,  Year  IX. 

Beuchot’s  Life  of  Voltaire. 


324 


Appendix  G 325 

Mangeant’s  Sur  une  Statuette  de  Voltaire.  1896. 

Guiffrey’s  Les  Caffieris.  1877. 

Monval’s  Les  Collections  de  la  Comedie-Frangaise.  1897. 

Dacier’s  Les  Musees  de  la  Comedie-Frangaise.  1905. 

Thierry’s  La  Comedie-Frangaise  pendant  les  Deux  Sieges,  1870-71. 
1887. 

Lacroix’s  Iconographie  Molieresque.  1876. 

Taschereau’s  Vie  de  Moliere. 

Petitain’s  Works  of  Rousseau.  1819.  (Appendix  to  the  Confessions.) 
Tourneux’s  Grimm-Diderot  Correspondance.  1880. 

Gonze’s  La  Sculpture  et  la  Gravure  au  XIX  Siecle.  1892. 

Gonze’s  Les  Chefs  d’CEuvre  des  Musees  de  France.  1904. 

Dilke’s  French  Architects  and  Sculptors  of  the  XVIII  Century.  1900. 
Brownell’s  French  Art.  1900. 

Taft’s  History  of  American  Sculpture.  1903. 

Lawton’s  Life  of  Auguste  Rodin.  1907. 

Memoires  of  Mme.  de  Genlis. 

Memoires  of  Barere.  1842. 

Soulavie’s  Memoires  Historiques  et  Politiques  du  Regne  de  Louis  XVI. 
1802. 

Taylor’s  Memoires  of  the  House  of  Orleans.  1852. 

Talma’s  Chronological  Account  of  the  French  Revolution.  1795. 
Peltier’s  Revolution  of  the  Tenth  of  August.  1793. 

Laurie’s  History  of  Freemasonry.  1859. 

Gould’s  History  of  Freemasonry.  1866. 

Besuchet’s  Precis  Historique  de  l’Ordre  de  la  Franc-magonnerie.  1829. 
Pike’s  Material  for  History  of  Freemasonry  in  France. 

Sachse’s  Masonic  Chronology  of  Benjamin  Franklin. 

Sachse’s  Benjamin  Franklin  as  a Freemason. 

Marvin’s  Medals  of  the  Masonic  Fraternity.  1880. 

Loubat’s  Medallic  History  of  the  United  States. 

Saunier’s  Augustin  Dupre.  1894. 


326  Appendix  G 

Buell’s  John  Paul  Jones.  1900. 

Brady’s  John  Paul  Jones.  1900. 

Hamilton’s  John  Paul  Jones.  1845. 

Sherburne’s  John  Paul  Jones.  1825. 

Sands’s  John  Paul  Jones.  1830. 

Alger’s  The  Naval  Academy’s  Miniature  of  John  Paul  Jones.  1906. 

C.  H.  Hart’s  History  of  the  Sword  presented  by  Louis  XVI  to  John 
Paul  Jones. 

C.  H.  Hart’s  Franklin  in  Allegory.  1890. 

C.  H.  Hart’s  Browere’s  Life-Masks  of  Great  Americans. 

C.  H.  Hart’s  Last  of  the  Silhouettists. 

C.  H.  Hart’s  Life  Portraits  of  Jefferson. 

C.  H.  Hart’s  Hints  on  Portraits. 

La  Fayette’s  Memoirs,  Correspondence  and  Manuscripts.  1837. 
Levasseur’s  Lafayette  in  America.  1829. 

Henry’s  Life  of  Patrick  Henry.  1891. 

Pennsylvania  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography. 

American  Historical  Review.  Volume  I. 

Proceedings  of  the  American  Philosophical  Society.  1744-1858. 
Michelet’s  History  of  the  Nineteenth  Century. 

Dayot’s  Napoleon  raconte  par  l’lmage.  1902. 

Century  Magazine.  October,  1905. 

Appleton’s  Magazine.  June,  1906. 

The  Independent.  July  13,  1905. 

Papers  relative  to  Foreign  Relations  of  the  United  States.  1906. 

John  Paul  Jones  Commemoration  at  Annapolis.  1907. 

Journals  of  Congress. 

Hickey’s  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  1847. 

Calendar  of  State  Papers  of  Virginia. 

Sparks’s  Correspondence  of  the  American  Revolution. 

Sparks’s  Writings  of  Washington. 

Ford’s  Writings  of  Washington. 

Sparks’s  Writings  of  Franklin. 


32  7 


Appendix  G 

Bigelow’s  Writings  of  Franklin. 

Smyth’s  Writings  of  Franklin. 

Randolph’s  Writings  of  Jefferson. 

Washington’s  Writings  of  Jefferson. 

Ford’s  Writings  of  Jefferson. 

Hamilton’s  Writings  of  Monroe. 

Johnston’s  Writings  of  Jay. 

Correspondence  of  Charles  Thomson. 

Catalogues  of  the  Paris  Salon.  1771  to  1814. 

Story’s  Mask  of  Washington. 

Hale’s  Franklin  in  France. 

State  Records  of  North  Carolina. 

Hening’s  Statutes  of  Virginia. 

Vachon’s  L’Ancien  Hotel  de  Ville. 

Lacroix’s  Actes  de  la  Commune  de  Paris  pendant  la  Revolution.  1894- 
1908. 

Geffroy’s  Chefs  d’CEuvre  de  Versailles. 

Lettres  de  la  Marquise  du  Deffand  a Horace  Walpole. 

Westcott’s  History  of  Philadelphia. 

List  of  Franklin  Papers  in  Library  of  Congress. 

List  of  John  Paul  Jones  Papers  in  Library  of  Congress. 

Calendar  of  Jefferson  Papers  in  State  Department. 

Franklin  Manuscripts  in  American  Philosophical  Society. 

Franklin  Manuscripts  in  Library  of  Congress. 

Washington  Manuscripts  in  Library  of  Congress. 

John  Paul  Jones  Manuscripts  in  Library  of  Congress. 

Jefferson  Manuscripts  in  Library  of  Congress. 

Manuscript  Archives  of  the  State  of  Virginia,  in  Richmond. 

Autograph  Collection  of  Simon  Gratz,  Esq.,  Philadelphia. 

Autograph  Collection  of  Oliver  K.  Brooks,  Esq.,  Cleveland,  O. 
Autograph  Collection  of  Charles  Henry  Hart,  Philadelphia. 

Autograph  Collection  of  F.  J.  Dreer,  in  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania. 
Autograph  Collection  of  Charles  Roberts,  in  Haverford  College  Library. 


INDEX 


■ 


Index 


Academie  de  Peinture  et  de  Sculpture,  5 ; 
history  of,  264,  n. 

Adelaide  of  France,  Houdon’s  bust  of,  20; 
not  paid  for,  21,  22 

Alexander  of  Russia,  Houdon’s  bust  of, 
271 

Alexander  the  Great,  by  Houdon,  15 
Allegrain’s  Diana,  28 

American  Philosophical  Society,  Franklin 
MSS.  in,  65,  79;  has  bust  of  Condor- 
cet  and  of  Turgot,  180;  has  bust  of 
Jefferson,  249 

Angouleme,  Duchesse  d’,  born,  161 
Anspach,  Margravine  of,  Houdon’s  bust 
of,  262 

Antoinette,  Marie,  first  accouchement,  161 ; 
celebrated  by  Lodge  of  Nine  Sisters, 
161;  son  born  to,  169;  celebration  of, 
169;  announced  to  Congress,  169 
Apollo,  by  Houdon,  179 
Arnould,  Sophie,  Houdon’s  bust  of,  18 
Ashkoff,  d’,  Princesse,  Houdon’s  bust  of, 
173 

Bachaumont,  19;  history  of  Memoires  Se- 
crets, 155 

“Baigneuse,”  model  of,  175;  marble  in 
New  York,  175 

Bailly,  bust  by  Houdon,  254;  destroyed, 
254 

Barclay,  Thomas,  commercial  agent  at 
Nantes,  228;  selects  Houdon  to  make 
bust  of  La  Fayette,  231;  letter  to 
Patrick  Henry,  231 
Bard,  Dr.,  owns  bust  of  Franklin,  106 
Barere,  on  Houdon’s  bust  of  La  Rive, 


177;  saves  Houdon  from  guillotine, 

259 

Barlow,  Joel,  Houdon’s  bust  of,  262;  mar- 
ble owned  by  great-grandnephew,  263 ; 
plaster  busts  in  Pennsylvania  Academy 
of  Fine  Arts  and  in  National  Acad- 
emy of  Design,  263 

Barnes,  James,  on  Houdon’s  bust  of  John 
Paul  Jones,  128 

Barthelemy,  Abbe,  Houdon’s  bust  of,  260 
Biddle,  Edward,  letter  to  Jules  Claretie, 

41 

Bignon,  M.,  Houdon’s  bust  of,  15;  mayor 
of  Paris,  15 ; 

Mme.,  Houdon’s  bust  of,  16 
Bire,  de,  Houdon’s  bust  of,  180 
Biron,  Marquis  of,  bust  of  Jones,  135; 
attributed  to  Houdon,  135 ; apocry- 
phal, 136;  not  Jones,  136;  not  an  heir- 
loom, 136;  purchased  as  “unknown,” 
136;  letters  from,  137,  n. 

Boilly,  Louis,  portraits  of  Houdon,  283 
Boissy  d’Anglas,  Houdon’s  bust  of,  270 
Boissy,  Louis  de,  on  Diana,  29,  30 
Boston  Athenaeum,  had  Houdon’s  busts  of 
Washington,  Franklin,  La  Fayette 
and  Paul  Jones,  223;  presented  by 
Houdon  to  Jefferson,  223,  n. 

Brizard,  the  actor,  34 
Brongniart,  Alexandre,  Houdon’s  bust  of, 
19 

Louise,  Houdon’s  bust  of,  19;  in  New 
York,  19,  n. 

Brownell,  W.  C.,  on  Houdon’s  Diana,  27 
Buell,  Augustus  C.,  life  of  Jones  fictitious, 
129,  n. ; invents  titles  of  books  he 


33 


33^ 


Index 


quotes,  129,  n.f  147;  forgery  of  Jones’s 
height,  146;  ranks  with  Chatterton 
and  Ireland  as  a forger,  147;  forges 
Jones’s  bequest  of  sword  to  Dale,  148 

Buffon,  bust  of,  177 

Burton,  Robert,  offers  bust  of  J.  P.  Jones 
to  North  Carolina,  133;  not  in  the 
State,  134 

Cadaver,  worthless  for  identifying  body  of 
Jones,  148 

Caffieri,  Jean-Jacques,  bust  of  Voltaire, 
38;  did  not  make  one,  40;  presents 
bust  of  Voltaire  by  Le  Moyne  to 
Comedie-Frangaise,  39,  46;  attributed 
to,  41;  supplanted  by  Houdon,  48; 
makes  monument  to  Montgomery,  64, 
79;  exhibits  design  in  Salon,  65;  let- 
ters from,  65,  79,  80,  81,  85,  86,  87, 
92,  93,  94;  bust  of  Franklin,  65;  jeal- 
ous of  Houdon,  86;  letter  of  Wil- 
liam Temple  Franklin,  88;  presents 
“burst”  to  W.  T.  Franklin,  95;  bust 
for  Sarah  Bache,  95;  bust  of  Franklin 
in  the  Institute  of  France,  96;  type 
of  Franklin  bust,  97;  comment  upon, 
100,  101 ; finer  than  Houdon’s,  104 

Cagliostro,  Houdon’s  bust  of,  272 

Calendar  of  the  French  Revolution, 

260,  w. 

Carmichael  [William],  bust  of  Franklin 
for,  77 

Carrousel,  Place  du,  4,  284 

Catharine  of  Russia,  bust  of,  17;  Diana 
for,  24;  acquires  bust  of  Voltaire,  36; 
obstacle  to  Houdon  visiting  United 
States,  36;  has  statuette  of  Voltaire, 
36;  orders  bust  of  Buffon,  177 

Ceracchi,  Giuseppe,  bust  of  Franklin,  73, 
76,  79,  94,  96;  of  Washington,  94;  of 
Hamilton,  94,  99 

Church  of  the  Chartreuse,  Houdon’s  St. 
Bruno  for,  9;  or  St.  Mary  of  the 
Angels,  9,  10 


Cicero,  Houdon’s  colossal  statue  of,  264 
Claretie,  Jules,  letter  to,  41,  47 
Clement  XIV,  Pope,  on  St.  Bruno,  9 
Cochin  [Charles  Nicholas],  fur-cap  por- 
trait of  Franklin,  76 

Comedie-Frangaise,  Houdon’s  bust  of 
Voltaire  at,  35;  catalogue  of  works 
of  art,  41 ; letter  to,  41 ; reply,  42  ; 
Houdon’s  statue  of  Voltaire  at,  54 
Commercial  value  of  Houdon’s  works, 

26,  278,  279 
Competitions,  120 

Condorcet,  bust  of,  180;  given  to  William 
Short,  180;  in  American  Philosophi- 
cal Society,  180 

Congress,  monument  to  Louis  XVI,  84; 
to  Yorktown,  84 

Cordier,  Abbe,  burning  with  zeal,  161,  163 
Corneille,  40;  Caffieri’s  statue  of,  80 
Corny  de  Ethis,  delivers  oration  on  recep- 
tion of  bust  of  La  Fayette,  234;  aids 
Jefferson,  235 

Costume  for  statue  of  Washington,  208, 
209,  210 

Coypel  [Charles-Antoine],  4 

D’Angevilliers,  wants  statue  to  Voltaire, 

53 

David,  Louis,  enemy  of  Houdon,  260;  his 
Napoleon,  267 

Dayot,  Armand,  on  Houdon’s  Napoleon, 
265 

Delamotte,  M.,  3,  4 

Denis,  Mme.,  niece  of  Voltaire,  54;  com- 
missions Houdon  for  statue,  54;  pre- 
sents statue  to  Comedie-Frangaise, 
54,  55 

Desnoiresterres,  Gustave,  on  bust  of  Vol- 
taire, 44;  anachronism  by,  156 
Diana,  bust  of,  24;  statue  of,  25;  forbid- 
den the  Salon,  24;  too  realistic,  25;  in 
the  Louvre,  25 ; at  St.  Petersburg,  25 ; 
in  Museum  at  Tours,  25;  for  Girar- 
dot  de  Marigny,  25,  176;  owned  by 


Index 


333 


Lord  Hertford  at  “Bagatelle,”  25; 
by  C.  T.  Yerkes,  26;  by  Duveen,  26; 
variations  of  detail,  26;  W.  C.  Brown- 
ell on,  27;  Vitry  on,  28;  Rulhiere’s 
poem  on,  29;  Boissy  on,  29;  compared 
with  Apollo  of  the  Vatican,  30 

Diderot  [Denis],  Houdon’s  bust  of,  16; 
and  Houdon,  285 

Dijon,  Napoleon  by  Houdon  at,  267;  in- 
scription, 268;  Houdon’s  works  in, 
278 

Dix,  Morgan,  error  as  to  Montgomery’s 
monument,  71 

Dixey,  John,  copied  busts,  98 

Dixmerie,  Nicholas  Bricaire  de  la,  orator 
of  Lodge  of  Nine  Sisters,  165;  ad- 
dress to  Paul  Jones,  168 

Dupont  de  Nemours,  letter  to  Jefferson, 
106;  Jefferson  to,  107 

Duvivier  [Pierre-Simon-Benj amin] , 
medallist,  6 

Mme.,  niece  of  Voltaire,  54 

“ficorche,”  by  Houdon,  10,  13;  in  bronze, 
179 

“£leves”  of  Houdon  accompany  him  to 
America,  191 

Equestrian  statue  to  Washington,  183; 
Houdon  wants  to  make,  191,  194, 
196;  model  of,  195;  Clark  Mills 
makes,  196 

£rard,  Sebastian,  piano  by,  28 

“Female  bathing  with  Black  Slave,” 
destroyed,  176 

Franklin,  Benjamin,  empowered  to  pro- 
cure monument  to  Montgomery,  64; 
engages  Caffieri  to  make  it,  64;  letter 
to  Hutton,  66;  letters  to  Jay,  67,  69; 
letter  to  Livingston,  67;  “Father  of  all 
the  Yankees,”  73;  bust  by  Houdon, 
73 ; Ceracchi’s  bust,  73 ; arrival  in 
France,  73;  the  Frenchman’s  Ameri- 
can, 74;  description  by  police,  75;  de- 


scription by  himself,  75;  portraits  of, 
76;  by  Cochin,  76;  by  Greuze,  76;  by 
Nini,  76;  by  Caffieri,  76;  two  busts, 
76;  letter  to  discontented  artist,  77; 
Caffieri  presents  statue  of  Corneille, 
80;  letters  from  Caffieri,  65,  79,  80, 
81,  85,  93,  94;  bust  by  Caffieri  in  In- 
stitute of  France,  96;  bust  in  Penn- 
sylvania Academy  of  Fine  Arts,  97; 
busts  by  Caffieri  and  Houdon  dis- 
tinguished, 97 ; busts  made  gratui- 
tously, 102;  favors  Caffieri’s  bust, 
103;  orders  five,  104;  Turgot’s  in- 
scription for  bust  of,  108;  Rodin  on 
bust  by  Houdon,  108;  initiated  into 
Lodge  of  Nine  Sisters,  159;  at  Lodge 
of  Sorrow  for  Voltaire,  160;  elected 
Venerable  of  the  Lodge  of  Nine  Sis- 
ters, 165;  farewell  to  France,  170; 
prizes  commemorative  of,  171;  Hou- 
don accompanies  to  America,  198; 
letter  to  Washington,  199;  letter 
from  Houdon,  203 

William  Temple,  grandson  of  Benjamin, 
65;  letters  from  Caffieri,  86,  87,  91; 
letter  to  Caffieri,  88;  letter  to  John 
Jay,  204;  on  Houdon’s  bust  of  Wash- 
ington, 205 

Freemasonry  in  France,  156,  171 

French  Revolution,  calendar  of,  260,  n. 

“Frileuse,  La,”  176;  in  bronze,  255; 
statuette  of,  260 

Fulton,  Robert,  Houdon’s  bust  of,  262;  in 
Musee  de  Marine  and  National  Acad- 
emy of  Design,  263 

Galitzin  family,  17 

Gasq,  P.,  statue  to  Houdon,  284 

Gaucher,  Charles  £tienne,  engraves 
“Crowning  of  Bust  of  Voltaire,”  47; 
secretary  of  Lodge  of  Nine  Sisters, 
169 

Genlis,  Mme.  de,  description  of  Rousseau, 
117 


Index 


334 

Gerbier,  Counsellor  Theatre-Frangais,  54; 

Houdon’s  bust  of,  54,  173 
Girard,  Stephen,  owns  busts  of  Rousseau 
and  of  Voltaire,  118,  119 
Gliick,  Houdon’s  bust  of,  18;  marked  with 
pits  of  small-pox,  141 
Gonze,  Louis,  16;  on  Diana,  24;  on  bust 
of  Voltaire,  36;  on  bust  of  Mirabeau, 
124;  on  bust  of  Cagliostro,  273 
Gotha,  Museum  at,  11,  12 
Greuze,  Jean  Baptiste,  on  eyes  by  Hou- 
don, 35;  pastel  portrait  of  Franklin, 
76 

Grimm,  Baron  [Friedrich  Melchior],  19; 
on  bust  of  Voltaire,  35;  on  bust  of 
Franklin,  101 ; on  bust  of  Moliere, 
hi;  Jones  presents  his  bust  to,  134 
Gros,  Baron,  Bonaparte,  265 
Guiffrey’s,  J.  J.,  Les  Caffieris,  38;  errors 
in  regard  to  bust  of  Voltaire,  38,  39, 
40,  41,  44;  quoted  with  approval,  46 
Gustavus,  King  of  Sweden,  bust  of,  180 


Harrison,  Benjamin,  letter  to  C.  W. 
Peale,  184;  letter  to  Jefferson,  184; 
letter  to  Franklin,  185;  letters  from 
C.  W.  Peale,  185;  letter  from  Jeffer- 
son, 187;  letter  to  Thomas  Barclay, 
228 

Hart,  Charles  Henry,  Life  Portraits  of 
Franklin,  77;  letter  of  Houdon  on 
statue  of  Rousseau,  121;  letters  from 
Marquis  de  Biron  to,  137,  n . ; letter 
to  Horace  Porter,  153 
Haverford  College,  letter  of  Houdon,  22 
Henry  IV,  statue  of,  on  Pont-Neuf,  269; 
made  of  Houdon’s  colossal  Napoleon, 
269 

Henry,  Patrick,  letter  from  Jefferson, 
196;  letter  to  La  Fayette,  231 
Hewes,  Joseph,  Montgomery’s  monument 
shipped  to,  67,  68 

Hopkinson,  Francis,  letter  to  Jefferson, 


204;  on  Houdon’s  bust  of  Washing- 
ton, 204 

Houdon,  Anne-Ange,  bust  of,  256;  mar- 
riage, 274 

Claudine,  bust  of,  256;  marriage,  274 

Jacques,  3,  17; 

Jean  Antoine,  birth,  3;  removes  to 
Paris,  3;  takes  a prize,  5,  6;  wins 
“Prix  de  Rome,”  6;  bas-relief,  “The 
Queen  of  Sheba  offers  Presents  to 
King  Solomon,”  6;  enters  lTcole  des 
Sieves  Proteges,  7 ; studies  under 
Slodtz  and  Vanloo,  7;  goes  to  Rome, 
8;  return  to  France,  8,  12;  statue  of 
St.  Bruno,  8;  “Scorche,”  10;  statue  of 
St.  John  the  Baptist,  10;  copy  of  a 
Centaur,  1 1 ; Morpheus,  12,  13;  first 
exhibits  at  Salon,  13;  Alexander  the 
Great,  15;  bust  of  Bignon,  15;  of 
Mme.  Bignon,  16;  of  Diderot,  16; 
visits  Gotha,  17;  bust  of  Mme. 
de  Mailly,  17;  refused  to  model 
Washington  except  from  life,  18; 
busts  of  Miromesnil,  Turgot,  Sophie 
Arnould,  and  Gliick,  18;  model  of 
“Female  leaving  the  Bath,”  18;  Me- 
dusa, 18;  busts  of  children  of  Alex- 
andre Brongniart,  19;  busts  of  sculp- 
tor’s children,  19;  bust  of  Mile.  Lise, 
19;  “Dead  Thrush,”  19;  busts  of 
Louis  XVIII,  of  his  wife,  and  of  his 
aunts  Adelaide  and  Victoire,  20;  let- 
ter to  Abbe  Ruallemy,  21;  letter  in 
Roberts  collection,  22;  Diana,  24; 
forbidden  the  Salon,  24;  too  realistic, 
25;  mythological  group  on  piano,  29; 
head  not  turned  by  success,  30;  the 
greatest  French  sculptor,  31;  Vol- 
taire, 32;  sits  to,  34;  bust  of  Vol- 
taire at  Comedie-Frangaise,  35; 
crowned,  35,  38;  Voltaire  a V antique, 
35 ; makes  six  marble  busts  of  Vol- 
taire, 36;  casts  hands  of  Voltaire,  36; 
untiring  industry,  43 ; rapidity  of  exe- 


Index 


335 


cution,  43;  modeled  bust  of  Wash- 
ington and  cast  it  in  two  weeks,  43 ; 
bust  of  Moliere,  44;  drawing  by 
Moreau  shows  bust,  47;  supplants 
Caffieri,  48;  statue  of  Voltaire,  48; 
presented  to  Comedie-Frangaise,  54; 
impression  made  on  beholders,  55 ; 
Claude  Phillips  on,  55;  Caffieri  jeal- 
ous of,  86;  type  of  bust  of  Franklin, 
97;  comment  upon,  101 ; Guiffrey 
upon,  101 ; introduction  to  Franklin, 
103;  rendering  of  eyes,  104,  hi; 
busts  of  Franklin  in  this  country,  105, 
106;  Rodin  on,  108;  bust  of  Moliere, 
no;  mask  of  Rousseau,  114;  makes 
three  busts  of  Rousseau,  116-118; 
pirated,  117;  bust  of  Mirabeau,  122; 
monument  to  de  Tourville,  125;  bust 
of  John  Paul  Jones,  125;  universally 
approved,  132;  Biron  bust  of  Jones 
attributed  to,  135;  not  Jones  and  not 
by,  142;  “the  first  sculptor  of  his  cen- 
tury,” 140;  “the  true  master  of  his 
epoch,”  140;  “the  great  evocator  of 
physiognomies,”  141 ; “the  magician 
interpreter  of  the  human  face,”  150; 
busts  of  Voltaire  at  Lodge  of  Nine 
Sisters,  160;  Lodge  engages  to  make 
bust  of  Jones,  167;  “Female  bathing 
with  Black  Slave,”  176;  “La  Fri- 
leuse,”  176;  “Summer,”  177;  bust  of 
La  Fontaine,  177;  bust  of  Mile.  Rob- 
ert, 177;  busts  of  Louis  and  of  Buf- 
fon,  177;  bust  of  La  Rive,  177;  cast- 
ing in  bronze,  178;  Apollo,  179;  casts 
of  Moliere,  Buffon,  Voltaire,  Rous- 
seau, and  “ficorche,”  179;  bust  of 
King  of  Sweden,  180;  bust  of  Prince 
Henry  of  Prussia,  180;  bust  of  M.  le 
Pelletier  de  Mortfontaine,  180;  bust 
of  de  Bire,  180;  bust  of  Le  Noir,  180; 
bust  of  Condo rcet,  180;  engaged  to 
make  statue  of  Washington,  183;  “the 
first  statuary  in  the  world,”  186;  re- 


fuses to  make  statue  from  picture, 
187;  offers  to  go  to  America,  188; 
taken  ill,  190;  required  life  to  be  in- 
sured, 190;  wants  to  make  busts  of 
Greene  and  Gates,  191;  wants  to 
make  equestrian  statue  to  Washing- 
ton, 191;  meets  Franklin,  194;  makes 
model  of  equestrian  statue  of  Wash- 
ington, 195;  letter  to  Livingston,  196; 
agreement  for  statue  of  Washington, 
197;  Houdon  accompanies  Franklin 
to  America,  198;  trials  of  the  voyage, 
199;  arrival,  199;  Washington  writes 
to,  199;  in  Philadelphia,  200;  arrives 
at  Mount  Vernon,  200;  remains  two 
weeks,  201 ; makes  bust  and  mask  of 
Washington,  201;  shows  mask  to 
Rembrandt  Peale,  201 ; sold  at  sale 
of  1828,  201;  letter  to  Franklin,  203; 
Hopkinson  on  bust  of  Washington, 
204;  Thomson  on  bust  of  Washing- 
ton, 205 ; shown  to  Congress,  205 ; 
gives  one  to  Franklin,  205;  takes  life- 
mask  with  him  to  France,  206;  work- 
men take  bust,  206;  original  in 
Louvre,  206;  original  works  in  Amer- 
ica, 207;  bust  of  Washington  exhib- 
ited, 21 1 ; statue  of  Washington  com- 
pleted, 212;  erected  in  Richmond, 
213;  payment  for,  214;  letter  from, 
in  English,  214;  claim  for  deprecia- 
tion of  assignats,  215;  adjusted,  216; 
receipt,  217;  Gilbert  Stuart  on,  219, 
n.;  Lorado  Taft  on,  220;  cast  of,  by 
Hubard,  221;  bust  of  Washington  at 
Mt.  Vernon,  224;  carried  off  by  Clark 
Mills,  224;  copy  of  statue  presented 
to  France,  225;  selected  to  make  bust 
of  La  Fayette,  231;  furnishes  bust  of 
La  Fayette,  232;  presented  to  France, 
233;  placed  in  Hotel  de  Ville,  234; 
makes  second  bust  of  La  Fayette, 
236;  in  Capitol  at  Richmond,  237; 
busts  of  La  Fayette  unfortunate,  239; 


336 


Index 


close  relations  with  Jefferson,  248; 
takes  mask  of,  249;  makes  bust  of, 
249;  busts  of  La  Fayette,  Necker, 
Louis  XVI,  and  Bailly  destroyed,  249, 
254;  “La  Frileuse,”  255 ; busts  of  wife 
and  children,  256;  escapes  the  guillo- 
tine, 257;  saved  by  wife,  258;  statue 
of  Saint  Scholastique,  258;  “Vestal 
Virgin,”  260;  Sale  of  1795,  261;  deco- 
rated with  Legion  of  Honor,  264; 
models  bust  of  Napoleon,  265;  and 
of  Josephine,  265;  models  Bonaparte, 
266;  his  Bonaparte  and  his  Napoleon 
the  two  best  portraits  of  the  man, 
267;  witticism  of,  269;  Voltaire  for 
the  Pantheon,  270;  last  exhibit  at  Sa- 
lon, 270;  bust  of  Alexander  of  Russia, 
271;  King  of  Prussia  and  Humboldt 
visit  studio,  271;  as  a man,  272;  his 
character,  273;  his  marriage,  274; 
visits  the  Theatre-Frangais,  275;  Vol- 
taire’s father,  275;  death  of,  276;  his 
fame,  276;  statues  to,  276,  284;  “Salle 
Houdon”  in  the  Louvre,  277;  rue 
Houdon,  278;  Chevalier  of  the  Em- 
pire, 278;  commercial  value  of  works, 
278;  his  appearance,  282;  model  for 
Gerard,  282 ; portraits  of,  283 ; busts 
of,  284;  influence  upon  and  by,  284; 
Diderot  and,  285. 

Mme.,  Houdon’s  bust  of,  257;  saves 
Houdon  from  guillotine,  258;  mar- 
riage of,  273;  children  of,  273 
Madeleine  Pelagie,  Houdon’s  sister, 
death  of,  261 

Sabine,  17;  bust  of,  256;  marriage,  274 
Hubard,  W.  J.,  makes  cast  of  Houdon’s 
Washington,  221;  completed  six  in 
bronze  and  one  in  plaster,  222 
Hutton,  James,  letter  from  Franklin,  66 
Laurence,  wild  statements  by,  109 

Inscription  on  statue  of  Washington,  182, 
210 


Ireland,  birthplace  of  American  patriots, 
62 

“Irene,”  sixth  representation  of,  35 ; Vol- 
taire present,  35;  Houdon’s  bust  of 
Voltaire  crowned,  35 

Irvine,  William,  Jones  gives  his  bust  to, 
13 1 ; in  existence,  132;  in  Pennsyl- 
vania Academy  of  Fine  Arts,  132 

Jal,  Augustin,  description  of  Houdon,  282 

Jardella,  Giuseppe,  copied  busts,  98 

Jeanes,  Joseph  Y.,  owns  bust  of  Franklin, 
106 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  letter  from  Dupont  de 
Nemours,  106;  letter  to  Dupont  de 
Nemours,  107;  selects  Houdon  to 
make  statue  of  Washington,  183,  193; 
letters  to  Washington,  186,  190;  let- 
ter to  Harrison,  186;  letter  to  Rich- 
ard Henry  Lee,  191;  letter  to  James 
Monroe,  191 ; had  laboring  oar,  193; 
letter  to  John  Jay,  194;  letter  to  Pat- 
rick Henry,  196;  Francis  Hopkinson 
to,  204;  Charles  Thomson  to,  205; 
relations  with  Houdon,  248;  inter- 
ested in  art,  248;  mask  of,  249;  bust 
of,  249 

Jones,  John  Paul,  bust  of,  125;  used  for 
identifying  remains,  125 ; inquiry  into, 
125;  hats  a la , 126;  Grimm  on,  126; 
letter  to  Comtesse  de  la  Vendahl,  126; 
lock  of  his  hair,  126;  presented  to  the 
King,  127;  decorated,  127;  given 
sword,  127;  in  Paris,  126;  return  to 
America,  127;  invested  with  order, 
127;  order  on  Houdon’s  bust,  128; 
portraits  of,  128;  by  Vendahl,  Renaud, 
Notte,  Moreau,  128;  James  Barnes 
on  Houdon’s  bust  of,  128;  gives  busts 
to  Jefferson,  Washington,  and  Robert 
Morris,  129;  duties  demanded  upon, 
130;  honored  by  Washington’s  accep- 
tance, 130;  letter  to  William  Short 


Index 


337 


about  busts,  13 1;  busts  not  received, 
1 3 1 ; only  one  identified,  132;  Peale’s 
portrait  not  like,  132;  gives  away  six- 
teen busts,  134;  two  at  National 
Academy  of  Design,  135;  C.  H.  Tay- 
lor owns  one,  135;  Biron  bust  of,  135; 
owned  by  J.  P.  Morgan,  135;  bought 
as  unknown,  136;  Dupre  medal  of, 
137;  F.  D.  Millet  and  Charles  Grafly 
think  Biron  bust  not  Jones,  137; 
Dilke’s  error  concerning,  137,  n. ; 
identification  of  body,  138;  Porter’s 
report  on,  138;  in  Paris,  142;  Pa- 
pillault  on  age  of,  146;  on  height  of, 
146;  on  color  of  hair,  148;  dimen- 
sions of  face,  149;  stature,  148;  lock 
of  hair,  149;  nose  of,  151;  nose  of  ca- 
daver, 1 5 1 ; concave  vs.  convex,  151; 
Houdon’s  bust  an  artistic  creation, 
154;  initiated  into  Lodge  of  Nine  Sis- 
ters, 167;  engages  Houdon  to  make 
bust,  167 

Joubert,  General,  Houdon’s  statue  of,  270 

Lacroix,  Sigismond,  edits  Acts  of  the 
Commune  of  Paris,  242;  letter  to, 
243 ; letters  from,  244,  245 

La  Fayette,  letter  to  Washington,  189, 
227,  235;  appointed  Major-General 
before  twenty,  226;  Virginia  votes 
bust  of,  227;  Houdon  selected  to  make 
bust  of,  231 ; placed  in  Hotel  de  Ville, 
Paris,  234;  appreciates  gift  of  Vir- 
ginia, 235 ; a second  bust  for  Virginia, 
236;  in  Capitol,  237;  nose  broken, 
237;  in  State  Library,  238;  busts  un- 
fortunate, 238;  that  given  to  France 
destroyed,  239,  246;  history  of,  243; 
statue  of  Washington  for,  245;  bust 
at  Versailles,  246 

La  Fontaine,  Houdon’s  bust  of,  177 

La  Rive,  Houdon’s  bust  of,  177 

L’Lcole  des  Eleves  Proteges,  3,  4,  7 


Le  Moyne  [Jean  Baptiste],  5 ; bust  of  Vol- 
taire, 39,  42;  engraved  by  St.  Aubin, 
44 

Le  Noir,  Houdon’s  bust  of,  180 
Le  Roy,  M.,  bust  of  Franklin  for,  77,  96 
Lodge  of  the  Nine  Sisters,  155;  Houdon 
makes  bust  of  J.  P.  Jones  for,  155; 
histories  of,  155;  founders  of,  156; 
Voltaire  visits,  158;  Franklin  initiated 
into,  159;  has  two  busts  of  Voltaire 
by  Houdon,  160;  celebrates  birth  of 
Marie  Antoinette’s  first  child,  161 ; 
ladies  admitted,  161 ; Mile.  Roily  ini- 
tiated into,  162;  charges  against,  163; 
action  of  the  Grand  Orient,  164; 
Franklin  elected  Venerable,  165;  Paul 
Jones  initiated  into,  167;  engages 
Houdon  to  make  Jones  bust,  167; 
Franklin  takes  farewell,  170;  medals 
issued  by,  171;  ceased  to  exist,  171; 
revived,  171;  coup  de  grace , 172 
Louis,  Dr.,  Houdon’s  bust  of,  177 
Louis  XV,  4 

Louis  XVI,  statue  to,  by  Congress,  81; 
inscription  for,  82 ; never  was  one,  84 ; 
speech  commemorated  by  tablet,  252; 
bust  by  Houdon,  253 ; destroyed,  254 
Louis  XVIII,  Houdon’s  bust  of,  20;  bust 
of  Queen  of,  20 

Louvre  Museum,  4,  5,  109,  206,  224,  256 
Luzerne,  Chevalier  de  la,  gives  fete,  127; 
invests  Paul  Jones,  127;  cross  sent  to, 
128;  celebrates  birth  of  dauphin,  170 


Mailly,  J.  C.  de,  17 
Mme.,  Houdon’s  bust  of,  17 
Marigny,  Marquis  de,  7;  Diana  for, 

25,  176 

Mask  of  Washington  by  Houdon,  201; 
Houdon  shows  it  to  Rembrandt  Peale, 
201 ; sold  at  sale  of  1828,  201 ; bought 
by  Robert  Walsh,  201 ; taken  to 
America,  201;  given  to  John  Struth- 


338 


Index 


ers,  201 ; given  to  Ferdinand  Pettrick, 
202;  sold  to  W.  W.  Story,  202;  sold 
to  J.  P.  Morgan,  202;  history  of, 
201-202 

Memoires  Secrets,  100,  155;  history  of, 
155,  n. 

Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art,  owns  Hou- 
don’s bust  of  Franklin,  106;  of  Vol- 
taire and  of  Rousseau,  279 

Michelet  on  Houdon’s  Bonaparte,  267 

Milly,  de,  Comte,  warden  of  Lodge  of 
Nine  Sisters,  167 

Mirabeau,  death  of,  123;  mask  of,  123; 
Houdon’s  bust  of,  123;  Louis  Gonze 
on,  124;  heroic  bust  of,  262 

Miromesnil,  Houdon’s  bust  of,  18 

Moliere,  40;  Houdon’s  bust  of,  no;  in 
Comedie-Frangaise,  112 

Monroe,  James,  not  authorized  to  buy 
bust  of  Franklin,  106 

Montgolfier,  Houdon  makes  bust  and 
medal,  273 

Montgomery,  Alexander,  member  of  Irish 
parliament,  89 

Richard,  birth  of,  62;  commissioned  en- 
sign, 62;  married  Janet  Livingston, 
62;  member  of  Congress,  62;  Major- 
General,  63;  death  of,  63;  Congress 
orders  monument  to,  64;  Smith’s 
oration  on,  64;  Franklin  engages 
Caffieri  to  make  monument,  64;  de- 
sign exhibited,  65 ; monument  shipped, 
66;  erected  at  St.  Paul’s  Church,  New 
York  69,  70;  inscription  on,  70;  re- 
mains interred  beneath  monument,  71 ; 
monument  dilapidated,  71 
[Thomas],  member  of  Irish  parliament, 
62 

Montpellier,  Museum  at,  Houdon’s  works 
in,  16,  177,  255,  278 

Moreau,  jeune , J.  M.,  makes  drawing  of 
“Crowning  Bust  of  Voltaire,”  47;  por- 
trait of  Jones,  128 

Morgan,  J.  P.,  owns  “the  Biron  bust  of 


J.  P.  Jones,”  135;  owns  Houdon’s 
life-mask  of  Washington,  201 
Morny,  Due  de,  wants  to  buy  statuette  of 
Voltaire,  38 

Morpheus,  at  Gotha,  12,  14;  at  Louvre, 
13,  14;  Secret  Memoirs  on,  14 
Morris,  Robert,  his  “Folly,”  98;  has  bust 
of  Jones,  129;  list  of  furniture,  130,  n. 

Napoleon,  Houdon  models  bust  of,  264; 
at  Versailles  and  at  Dijon,  265;  best 
of  all  portraits  of,  265 ; Armand 
Dayot  on,  265;  Michelet  on,  267 ; 
anecdote  of  Houdon  and,  268;  colos- 
sal statue  of,  268;  destroyed,  269 
National  Academy  of  Design,  owns  two 
busts  of  J.  P.  Jones  by  Houdon,  135; 
has  reproductions  made,  135;  has 
busts  of  Barlow  and  of  Fulton,  263 
Necker,  Jacques,  249;  Houdon’s  bust  of, 
251;  reproduced  at  Sevres,  252;  in 
Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania, 
252;  destroyed,  254 

Mme.,  subscription  for  statue  of  Vol- 
taire, 49;  protest  against  Pigalle,  52 
Newenham,  Sir  Edward,  bust  of  Franklin, 
89,  90 

Ney,  Marshal,  Houdon’s  bust  of,  262 
Nicholas  I,  not  in  sympathy  with  Vol- 
taire, 37;  sells  statuette,  37 
Nini,  Jean  Baptiste,  five  medallions  of 
Franklin,  76,  108 

Noel,  Tony,  statue  to  Houdon,  277 
Odeon  Theatre,  57 

Odeoud,  Mile.,  Houdon’s  bust  of,  173 
Ouis,  C.,  letter  from,  42 

Palissot,  Houdon’s  bust  of,  173 
Papillault,  Georges,  on  busts  of  J.  P. 
Jones,  139;  analyzes  them,  140;  com- 
pares bust  and  dead  face,  142;  takes 


Index 


measurements,  143;  age  cannot  be 
fixed  by  corpse,  146;  height  of  Jones 
furnished,  a forgery  by  Buell,  146; 
views  on  discord  between  historical 
documents  and  body,  150;  any  discord 
puts  an  end  to  the  demonstration,  15 1 
Peale,  Charles  Willson,  his  portrait  of 
J.  P.  Jones  not  like,  132;  ordered  to 
make  portrait  of  Washington,  184; 
furnishes  portrait  of  Washington, 
185  ; whereabouts  unknown,  186 
Rembrandt,  sees  Houdon’s  life-mask  of 
Washington,  201;  paints  portrait  of 
Houdon,  283 

Pelletier  de  Mortfontaine,  Houdon’s  bust 
of,  180;  mayor  of  Paris,  234 
Pennsylvania  Academy  of  Fine  Arts,  has 
bust  of  Franklin,  97;  has  Houdon’s 
bust  of  Jones,  132;  has  bronze  made, 
132;  has  bust  of  Barlow,  263;  has 
portrait  of  Houdon,  283 
Phillips,  Claude,  on  Houdon’s  St.  Bruno, 
9;  on  Houdon’s  statue  of  Voltaire, 
55;  on  Houdon’s  Napoleon,  266;  on 
Houdon’s  skill,  281 

Pierre  [Jean-Baptiste-Marie],  22,  23,  100 
Pigalle,  Jean-Baptiste,  4,  5 ; chosen  to  make 
statue  of  Voltaire,  50;  represents 
Voltaire  nude,  51;  Voltaire’s  verses 
to,  52;  statue  of  Voltaire  in  the  Insti- 
tute, 53;  de  Quincy  on,  53 
Pine,  Robert  Edge,  207,  208,  n. 

Porter,  Horace,  report  on  body  of  J.  P. 
Jones,  138;  his  “principle  of  elimina- 
tion,” 145;  adopts  Buell’s  forgeries 
without  investigation,  147,  148;  letter 
from,  152;  letter  to,  from  Mr.  Hart, 
153;  answer  from,  154 
Portraiture,  dissertation  on,  279-282 
Praslin,  Due  de,  bust  of,  173 
Prussia,  Prince  Henry  of,  bust  of,  180 


Quesnay,  Houdon’s  bust  of,  173 


339 

Quincy,  Quatremere  de,  13;  on  Pigalle’s 
statue  of  Voltaire,  53 
Rabache,  Anne,  mother  of  Houdon,  3 
Racine,  40 

Recamier,  Mme.,  bust  not  by  Houdon, 
269,  n.;  by  Chinard,  270,  n. 

Regamey,  Felix,  on  Houdon’s  Washing- 
ton, 221,  224 

Robert,  Mile.,  Houdon’s  bust  of,  177 
Rochette,  Raoul,  Houdon’s  son-in-law, 

4>  274 

Rode,  Mme.,  Houdon’s  bust  of,  262 
Rodin,  Auguste,  on  Houdon’s  bust  of 
Franklin,  108 

Roily,  Mile.,  initiated  into  Lodge  of  Nine 
Sisters,  162 

Rome,  Houdon  wins  Prix  de,  6;  goes  to, 
8;  returns  from,  11 
Rosset-Dupont,  bust  of  Voltaire,  49 
Rousseau,  Jean-Jacques,  bust  of,  by  Le 
Moyne,  41,  43;  death  of,  114;  mask 
of,  1 14,  1 16;  in  the  Pantheon,  115; 
by  Houdon,  pirated,  1 1 7 ; three  dif- 
ferent busts  of,  1 1 7,  1 1 8;  description 
of,  1 1 7,  1 18;  in  Stephen  Girard  col- 
lection, 1 1 8;  statue  to,  119 
Ruallemy,  Abbe,  letter  to,  21 
Rulhiere,  M.  de,  poem  on  Diana,  29 
Russia,  Catharine,  Empress  of,  Houdon’s 
bust  of,  17,  24 


Sachse,  Julius  F.,  errors  by,  158 
Saint  Bruno,  statue  of,  8;  compared  with 
Voltaire,  9;  cast  in  Trocadero,  9 
Saint  John  the  Baptist,  statue  of,  10,  11 
St.  Aubin,  Augustin  de,  engraved  Le 
Moyne’s  bust  of  Voltaire,  44;  Caffi- 
eri’s  tomb  of  Montgomery,  71;  Co- 
chin’s portrait  of  Franklin,  76 
Salon,  history  of,  2,  11,  n. 

Saxe-Gotha,  Duke  of,  16,  24 
Sculpture,  original,  105 ; compared  with 
painting,  105 ; method  of  work,  105 


34° 


Index 


Serilly,  Mme.  de,  Houdon’s  bust  of,  173 
Short,  William,  Paul  Jones  writes  to,  131; 
sends  lists  of  persons  to  have  his  bust, 
13 1 ; secretary  of  Legation  and  charge 
d’affaires,  180;  sends  bust  of  Condor- 
cet  to  American  Philosophical  Society, 
180;  presents  bust  of  La  Fayette  to 
France  for  Virginia,  234 
Shouwalow,  Andre  Paolovitch,  buys  statu- 
ette of  Voltaire,  37;  refuses  to  sell  it, 
38 

Jean,  furnishes  Voltaire  data,  38 
Slodtz  [Rene-Michel],  5,  7 
Smith,  William,  oration  on  Richard  Mont- 
gomery, 64 

Soulavie,  Abbe,  memoirs,  83;  friend  of 
Franklin,  84 

Story,  W.  W.,  owns  Houdon’s  life-mask  of 
Washington,  202;  error  in  regard  to 
bust  by  Houdon  not  being  from  life, 
202 ; did  not  know  bust  in  Louvre,  207 
Stuart,  Gilbert,  placed  Houdon’s  Wash- 
ington first,  219,  n. 

Taft,  Lorado,  on  busts  by  Ceracchi,  99; 

on  Houdon’s  Washington,  220 
Taylor,  C.  H.,  has  a bust  of  J.  P.  Jones 
by  Houdon,  135 

Theatre-Frangais  during  siege  of  Paris, 

58,  60^ 

Thierry,  fidouard,  Director  of  Theatre- 
Frangais,  58;  letter  from,  59 
Thomson,  Charles,  letter  to  Jefferson, 
205;  on  Houdon’s  bust  of  Washing- 
ton, 205 

“Thrush,  Dead,”  19,  20 
Tournehem,  Director-General  of  Royal 
Buildings,  4 

Tours,  Museum  at,  Diana  in,  25,  278 
Tourville,  Houdon’s  statue  of,  174;  over- 
crowded with  symbols,  174 
Traquair,  James,  offers  busts  for  sale,  98 
Tronchin,  Houdon’s  bust  of,  173 


Turgot,  Houdon’s  bust  of,  18;  in  Ameri- 
can Philosophical  Society,  181 

Vanloo  [Louis-Michel],  7 
Vendahl,  Comtesse  de  la,  letter  to,  from 
John  Paul  Jones,  126;  sends  her  lock 
of  hair,  126;  portrait  of  Jones  by, 
128,  149;  lock  of  Jones’s  hair  in  her 
miniature  of  him,  149;  Jones  sends 
address  of  Lodge  of  Nine  Sisters,  168 
Versailles,  Houdon  born  at,  3;  Houdon’s 
Napoleon  and  Josephine  at,  268 
Victoire  of  France,  Houdon’s  bust  of,  20 
Villette,  M.  de,  Voltaire  at  house  of,  33 
Mme.  de,  35 

Villevieille,  Marquis  de,  gets  Voltaire  to 
sit  to  Houdon,  33,  34 

Virginia,  votes  statue  to  Washington,  182; 
votes  bust  to  La  Fayette,  227;  changes 
destination,  229,  231;  votes  bust  to 
France  and  to  State,  230 
Vitry,  Paul,  on  Houdon’s  Morpheus,  12, 
13,  14;  on  Diana,  28 

Voltaire,  Houdon’s,  32;  return  of,  to  Paris, 
33>  157;  at  house  of  M.  de  Villette, 
33 ; sat  to  Houdon,  33 ; bust  at  Come- 
die-Frangaise,  35 ; present  at  sixth  rep- 
resentation of  “Irene,”  35 ; bust  a V an- 
tique, 35;  cast  of  hands,  36;  statuette 
in  St.  Petersburg,  37;  sold  by  Nicho- 
las I,  37;  bought  by  Shouwalow,  37; 
bust  by  Houdon  crowned,  38;  bust  by 
Le  Moyne,  39,  42,  46;  drawing  of 
“Crowning  of  Bust,”  47;  statue  by 
Houdon,  48;  bust  by  Rosset-Dupont, 
49;  opinion  of  own  appearance,  49; 
Pigalle  chosen  to  make  statue,  50; 
represents  him  nude,  51;  verses  to 
Pigalle,  52 ; statue  in  the  Institute,  53 ; 
Houdon’s  statue  presented  to  Come- 
die-Frangaise,  54;  Claude  Phillips  on 
Houdon’s  statue,  55 ; Houdon’s  statue 
during  siege  of  Paris,  58-61;  a Free- 


Index 


341 


mason,  157;  visits  Lodge  of  Nine  Sis- 
ters, 158;  death  of,  159;  statue  for 
the  Pantheon,  270 

Walferdin,  M.,  bequeaths  bust  of  Frank- 
lin and  of  Washington  to  the  Louvre, 
109,  206 

Washington,  statue  of,  182;  inscription, 
182;  equestrian  statue,  183;  Peale 
paints  portrait  of,  185;  description  of, 
185;  whereabouts  unknown,  186;  cost 
of,  186;  letters  from  Jefferson  to,  186; 
190,  208;  Houdon  refuses  to  make 
statue  from  painting,  187;  offers  to  go 
to  America,  188;  letter  from  La  Fay- 
ette, 189;  advised  of  Houdon’s  ar- 
rival, 199;  writes  to  Houdon,  199;  en- 
ters in  diary  Houdon’s  arrival,  200; 
Houdon  makes  bust  and  mask  of,  201 ; 


mask  owned  by  J.  P.  Morgan,  201 ; 
shows  mask  of,  to  Rembrandt  Peale, 
201;  bust  modeled  from  life,  203;  ex- 
hibited to  Congress,  203;  Francis 
Hopkinson  upon,  204;  W.  T.  Frank- 
lin upon,  204;  Charles  Thomson  upon, 
205 ; exhibited  to  Congress,  205 ; orig- 
inal in  Louvre,  205 ; costume  for 
statue,  208;  bust  by  Houdon  exhib- 
ited, 21 1 ; statue  completed,  212; 
erected  in  Richmond,  213;  Houdon’s 
likeness  of,  218;  exact  size  of  life, 
219;  the  canon  of  comparison  for  all 
other  portraits,  219;  Lorado  Taft  on, 
220;  Hubard’s  cast  of,  221;  Houdon’s 
bust  at  Mt.  Vernon,  224;  carried  off 
by  Clark  Mills,  224;  copy  presented 
by  Virgina  to  France,  225;  fitienne 
Charles  upon,  225;  by  Houdon,  for 
La  Fayette,  244;  heroic  bust  of,  262 


' 

. 

. 


■ ■ 


* 


r 


GETTY  CENTER  LIBRARY 


